Document: 383 U.S. 519 86 S.Ct. 1033 16 L.Ed.2d 69 Edward J. BRENNER, Commissioner of Patents, Petitioner,v.Andrew John MANSON. No. 58. Argued Nov. 17, 1965. Decided March 21, 1966. Paul Bender, Washington, D.C., for petitioner, pro hac vice, by special leave Court. Dean Laurence, respondent. Mr. Justice FORTAS delivered the opinion 1 This case presents two questions importance to administration patent laws: First, whether this Court has certiorari jurisdiction, upon petition review decisions Customs and Patent Appeals; second, practical utility compound produced a chemical process is an essential element in establishing prima facie patentability process. The facts are as follows: 2 In December 1957, Howard Ringold George Rosenkranz applied on allegedly novel making certain known steroids.1 They claimed priority 1956, date which they had filed Mexican patent. United States 2,908,693 issued late 1959. 3 January 1960, respondent Manson, chemist engaged steroid research, application precisely same described Rosenkranz. He asserted that it was he who discovered process, done so before 1956. Accordingly, requested 'interference' be declared order try out issue between his claim Rosenkranz.2 4 A Office examiner denied Manson's application, denial affirmed Board Appeals within Office. ground rejection failure 'to disclose any for' Letter Examiner, dated May 24, 1960. omission not cured, Office, reference article November 1956 Journal Organic Chemistry, 21 J.Org.Chem. 1333—1335, revealed steroids class included question were undergoing screening possible tumor-in-hibiting effects mice, homologue3 adjacent proven effective role. Said Appeals, 'It our view statutory requirement usefulness product cannot presumed merely because happens closely related another useful.' 5 (hereinafter CCPA) reversed, Chief Judge Worley dissenting. 52 C.C.P.A. (Pat.) 739, 745, 333 F.2d 234, 237—238. court held Manson entitled declaration interference since 'where produces necessary show product,' long 'is alleged detrimental public interest.' Certiorari granted, 380 971, 85 1334, 14 267, resolve running dispute over what constitutes 'utility' claims,4 well answer concerning jurisdiction. I. 6 Section 1256 Title 28 U.S.C. (1964 ed.), enacted 1948, provides 'Cases may reviewed Supreme writ certiorari.' unqualified language would seem foreclose challenge jurisdiction present case. Both Government5 urge we have CCPA, although latter confine those petitions dissatisfied applicants deny Patents right seek certiorari.6 concert does settle basic conferred consent parties. doubt exist stems from decision Court, rendered 1927, Postum Cereal Co. v. California Fig Nut Co., 272 693, 47 284, 71 L.Ed. 478, been widely interpreted precluding trademark CCPA. 7 Postum, however, based scheme materially different one. involved proceeding cancel trademark. rejected application. An appeal taken then District Columbia, 1927 exercised later transferred Under arrangement effect at time, judgment definitive determinative controversy. subsequent bill equity could brought conflicting adjudication thus obtained. On basis, Appeals. It conclusion 'administrative decision' rather than 'judicial judgment': 'merely instruction made part machinery administrative purposes.' U.S., 698—699, 285. Therefore, concluded, Appeals—essentially nature—was neither nor controversy meaning Article III Constitution. Congress might confer such 'administrative' tasks courts wrote Taft, but empower participate therein. 8 soon amended scheme. provided action alternative cumulative appellate review, maintained overcome Appeals.7 1929 Commissioner's now styled Appeals.8 Whereas empowered take additional evidence substitute its Commissioner, CCPA confined record Office.9 Compare Federal Communications Comm'n Pottsville Broadcasting 309 134, 144—145, 60 437, 442, 84 656. Despite these changes, acquired life own. continued stand way attempts secure here respecting Patents. See, e.g., McBride Teeple, 311 649, 61 8, 415, denying 'want jurisdiction' authority Postum.10 9 background against Congress, 1948 codification statutes pertaining judiciary, § 1256, blandly providing '(c)ases Appeals.' Nothing legislative materials relating statute, except language, assistance us resolution problem: Did changes followed mean 'judicial' determination reviewable under III? And, if so, intended create jurisdiction? 10 Assistance came with 1958 revision Judicial Code. there 'a established * *,' is, constitutional exercising judicial power. 211 ed.). 1962 addressed itself nature status Glidden Zdanok, 370 530, 82 1459, 671, raised judge judge, capable federal answering affirmative, Harlan's opinion, three seven Justices participating, expressly left open cases decided 578 n. 49, 1487. suggested, nothing more museum piece. noted 'must limited existence before' 1929. 579, 1488. concurring Clark, joined, did reflect difference point. 11 Thus, sought court. character. or machinery' final binding usual sense.11 sum, no vitality setting, remains bar 12 Having arrived conclusion, difficulty giving full force generality 1256. entirely arbitrary assume, despite enshrine Postum—dependent fundamentally altered 1929—as hidden exception sweep contrary plausible: using broad Constitution permits. 13 reinforced anomalous consequences result adopt Determinations challenged either suit instituted Columbia. 35 145, 1542 Where route elected, obtained Columbia Circuit, ultimately certiorari. Hoover Coe, 325 79, 65 955, 89 strange indeed corresponding where elected. Were event conflict achievable only litigants chose proceed through latter. Obviously, orderly both laws requires ultimate available regardless chosen litigants. We therefore conclude authorizes grant turn merits.12 II. 15 Our starting point proposition, disputed disputable, one 'useful.' Graham Deere 1, 5—10, 684, 687—690, history requisites patentability, need repeated here. Suffice say concept central place all legislation, beginning first law 179013 culminating law's provision 'Whoever invents discovers new useful machine, manufacture, composition matter, improvement thereof, obtain therefor, subject conditions requirements title.'14 17 As often case, simple, everyday word can pregnant ambiguity when life. That demonstrated how test yields already whose utility—other object scientific inquiry—has yet evidenced. ago agency seemed mind question. Application Bremner, 182 216, 217, 37 1032, 1034, claims. 'no use products developed processes shown specification.' never granted product, producing unless Nor doctrine See Thomas Michael, 166 944, 946—947, 1036, 1038—1039. 18 remained stead-fast view. moved sharply away Bremner. trend began Nelson, 280 172, 1031. There, reversed Office's yielding intermediates 'useful chemists doing research steroids,' absence themselves accelerated,15 sufficient 'detrimental 238, (Pat.), 745. 19 remarkable differences arise processes. Even knew meant 1790 devised 'new useful' phraseology re-enactments test, should applying context contemporary chemistry comprehensive man's grasp little wholly beyond pale 'utility'—if given broadest reach. 20 Respondent not—at least instance—rest extreme advanced below, patentable product16 'detrimental.' commit outcome slightly conventional proposition 'useful' 101 potential investigation serious researchers, urges position, too, basis affirming Rather, begins much orthodox argument specific entitle him even reading 101. supporting affidavits pursuant Rule 204(b), Ringold's article, reveal homologue yielded tumor-inhibiting discloses requisite utility. do accept theories adequate overriding met. assumption mice,17 overrule finding showing. that, homologue, respondent's papers likelihood similar characteristics. Indeed, himself recognized presumption homologues utility18 field greater unpredictability compounds field.'19 circumstances technical area, overturn Primary 22 second third points issues importance. Is (1) works—i.e., product? (2) belongs investigation? These contentions problem adjudication. Since find underlying 101, remitted analysis light general intent purposes system, implications other. 23 support plea attenuate 'utility,' relies Story's well-known statement invention 'which beneficial society, contradistinction injurious morals, health, good frivolous insignificant'20—and assertion encourage inventors publicize benefit entire community, widening search uses increasing fund knowledge. sheds subject. Narrowly read, compel decide 'frivolous insignificant'—a query easier built into statute. Read broadly, allow patenting positively harmful places intended. There are, after all, many things world considered which, nevertheless totally without capacity harm. 24 true, course, system dissemination information discoveries inventions.21 And inability some extent discourages disclosure leads secrecy otherwise inventor corporate organization employed, incentive keep secret while searched out. However, highly art drafting claims possible—while broadening scope possible—the virtue must warily evaluated. Moreover, pressure easily exaggerated, ascertain 'use' yields, every make able so. Finally, likely patented spur others put? To patentee power enforce patent, undertake uses. 25 Whatever weight attached value encouraging inhibiting secrecy, believe compelling consideration field, pointed degree utility, creates monopoly knowledge clearly commanded Until reduced production useful, metes bounds precise delineation. engross vast, unknown, perhaps unknowable area. Such block off whole areas development,22 compensating public. quid quo contemplated granting derived substantial Unless until refined point—where exists currently form—there insufficient justification permitting applicant prove field. 26 arguments sense apply equally appears concede respect opposed struck balance side nonpatentability shown. accord absent showing adduced case.23 absolutely warrant sole consists role use-testing, set rules unpatentable product.24 seems attempt evade impact concededly govern itself. 27 disparage contributions short something 'useful,' blind prospect tomorrow command grateful attention But hunting license. reward search, compensation successful conclusion. '(A) commerce realm philosophy. *'25 reversed. 29 Reversed. 30 DOUGLAS, acquiescing Part I Court's dissents merits substantially reasons stated HARLAN. 31 HARLAN, dissenting part. 32 While join agree important patentability. 33 contended workable sufficiently nonobvious satisfy alone contribution statute employs term.1 Certainly grant, states '(t)o promote Progress Science Arts,' exclusive 'Writings Discoveries' secured times produce them. Art. I, 8. Yet somewhat differently worded face construction issue, thrown back policy practice. Because convincing past practice favors respondent, reject narrow definition uphold (hereafter CCPA). 34 sets about half dozen interpretation. Several me almost force. For instance, suggested '(u)ntil delineation' (p. 534, ante) '(i)t area' ante). fail see relevance assertions; disallowed 'vast' nor, event, advance provide safeguard score fix 'metes bounds' hundred found greatly enhance value. further '(t)he quo' 'successful conclusion' 536, inventor's beg very simply facilitates infirmity inhere lacking immediate distinguished them, holds nonpatentable, nonpatentable. Assuming classes distinguished, adequately briefs, assuming firmly nonpatentable,2 permits wrong affords deciding use. 36 More point, think, remaining, prudential patentability: namely, induced allowing partly undercut patent-application techniques, occur will discourage inventing product. How far opaque lessen benefits resulting issuance but, important, operates patents gives reason singling thought inventions most disclosed allowed force; empirical study industry researchers behave fashion, abstractly logical choice them maintain discovered. discouraging uses, risk price paid other improvements hampered original reap reward. From standpoint interest resolved favor What troubling reached research. Chemistry interrelated tangible society number discoveries, discovery building next. facility invent disseminate vital progress, defines term, someone else less difficult step leading commercially item. my view, awareness age achieving publicizing lead uncertainties position 38 strengthened, during century. proof conclusive, commentators agreement 1950, applications commonly end extremely terms.3 Taking Bremner represented deviation remedy want return beaten track. If typically regarded inherent prolific period development country, surely added why adopted mandates it, presumably data possess. 39 Fully recognizing ample room disagreement when, here, abstract, below affirmed. their '2-methyl dihydrotestosterone derivatives esters thereof 2-methyl having C—17 lower alkyl group. high anabolic-androgenic ratio especially valuable treatment ailments anabolic antiestrogenic together lesser androgenic desired.' 135 ed.) provides: 'Whenever interfere pending unexpired shall give notice *. determined board interferences decision, adverse applicant, constitute refusal involved, adjudged prior inventor. *' CFR 1.204(b), 'When filing patentee, declared, file affidavit and, required, setting forth award relative patentee.' Thurman Arnold irreverent description claims, including 'interferences,' presented Monsanto Chemical 79 U.S.App.D.C. 155, 145 18. 'A homologous series family chemically compounds, varies member CH(2) (one atom carbon atoms hydrogen) Chemists knowing properties know expect members.' Henze, 181 196, 200—201, 1009, 1014. also re Hass, 141 122, 125, 895, 901; Norris, 179 970, 876; Jones, 149 501, 1020. With inferior predictability homologues, see, infra, p. 532. addition clear arguably Petrocarbon Limited Watson, 214, 247 800, cert. denied, 355 78 540, 531. Szwarc, 319 277, 281—286, 50 1571, 1576—1583. Government confers Prior lacked Brief Opposition Dalton Marzall, 87, O.T. 1951, 342 818, 72 33, 96 619. After Glidden, discussed 526, conceded close Gruschwitz, 1963, 375 967, 486, 416. curious limitation persuasive circumstance §§ 141, 142, official responsible selecting membership panels, appropriately bound determinations. No prevent secking Act 2, c. 273, 11, 44 Stat. 1335, 1336. supra, 572—579, 1484—1487; Kurland & Wolfson, Review Geo.Wash.L.Rev. 192 (1950). law. 145. 1929, 488, 45 1475. op. cit. 7, 196. Apart enactment existed cases. Robertson Kirkham, Jurisdiction States, 251 (Wolfson ed. 1951). precludes infringement suit, earlier 'infringer' effect. 4, 687. measure readjudication suits. amicus curiae is. argue 'patentability' properly us, actually Examiner 204(b) evaluate sufficiency submitted Rule. focused instead averments agree. foreclosed Office—which, according counsel 1,800 700 each week—has products. note supra. Second, unpatentable, complicated frequently lengthy factual inquiry inexorably place. contrary, 201(a), 1.201(a), involving 'two mroe parties claiming common matter *.' (Emphasis supplied.) Rogoff, 261 601, 606, 46 733, 739: 'The arises up interference.' Wirkler Perkins, 1005, 1008, 245 502, 504. Cf. Glass De Roo, 239 402, 723. current version 203(a), 1.203(a), makes explicit examiner, '(b)efore interference,' determine party. 237, 1.237. April 10, 1790, 109; Feb. 1793, 318; July 1836, 357, 117; 1870, 230, 198; Rev.Stat. 4886 (1874). Wilke, 314 558, 964, claim, holding 112 satisfied though specification recited manner used thereby yielded. Adams, 316 476, 1185. acknowledged changed generally, Note, Utility Requirement Law, 53 Geo.L.J. 154, 175—181 (1964). couches terms 'known' fact 'known,' save references literature suggest investigation. disposition express yield inhibit growth tumors laboratory animals. Hitchings, 80, 1141; Bergel, 292 48 1102; cf. Dodson, 943, 1125; Krimmel, 948, 1116. Marcus, Pharmaceutical Invention, J.Pat.Off.Soc. 669, 673—676 (1965). 3, letter requesting amendment, Record, pp. 20—23. 479—480, C.C.P.A.(Pat.) 1185, 1190 (concurring-dissenting opinion). 'minor structure profound biological activity.' 52. Note Laws, Wheat.App. 13, 24. circuit Lowell Lewis, Fed.Cas. 1018 (No. 8568) (C.C.D.Mass.), Bedford Hunt, 1217) (C.C.D.Mass.). 'As disclosure, offers seventeen-year refrains keeping trade secret.' Universal Oil Prods. Globe Ref. 322 471, 484, 64 1110, 1116, 88 1399. 158—161, 18, 21—24. F.2d, 744. 958, 1105. 180—181, 1043—1044; Folkers, 344 1269. committee reports preceded 1952 intention dichotomy, assumed. Sen.Rep.No.1979, Committee Judiciary, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 5, 17; H.R.Rep.No.1923, 6, 17. Hoxie, Attorneys's View, 630, 636 Ruschig, 343 965, 1238, 1245 (Rich, J.). also, Katz Horni Signal Mfg. Corp., 961 (C.A.2d Cir.). pertinent 529, ante. Any concession hardly controlling importance, am exists. Respondent, 53. quite true purports distinguish patents, actual firm. C.C.PA. (pat.) Examiner-in-Chief: 'Until recently get indicated indication suggestion (Bremner ruling) put practice.' Wolffe, Adequacy Disclosure Regards Specific Embodiment Use 41 (1959). Government's brief accord: '(I)t apparently assumed (prior 1950) necessarily success unnecessary 25. Cohen Schwartz, Do Intermediates Have Patentable Utility? 91 (1960); 183 (1964); Am.U.L.Rev.

Category: 7