Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12PDF/12-398_1B7D.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

Cite as:  569 U. S. ____ (2013) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

chemical  alteration  does  not  change  the  information-
transmitting  quality  of  the  DNA.  See  id.,  at  1330  (“The 
claimed  isolated  DNA  molecules  are  distinct  from  their 
natural  existence  as  portions  of  larger  entities,  and  their
informational content is irrelevant to that fact.  We recog-
nize  that  biologists  may  think  of  molecules  in  terms  of 
their uses, but genes are in fact materials having a chemi-
cal nature”).  Accordingly, he rejected petitioners’ argument
that  isolated  DNA  was  ineligible  for  patent  protection
as a product of nature.

Judge  Moore  concurred  in  part  but  did  not  rely  exclu-
sively on Judge Lourie’s conclusion that chemically break-
ing  covalent  bonds  was  sufficient  to  render  isolated  DNA 
patent  eligible.  Id.,  at  1341  (“To  the  extent  the  majority 
rests  its  conclusion  on  the  chemical  differences  between 
[naturally  occurring]  and  isolated  DNA  (breaking  the
covalent  bonds),  I  cannot  agree  that  this  is  sufficient  to 
hold  that  the  claims  to  human  genes  are  directed  to  pa-
tentable  subject  matter”).    Instead,  Judge  Moore  also 
relied on the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s 
(PTO)  practice  of  granting  such  patents  and  on  the  reli-
ance  interests  of  patent  holders.  Id.,  at  1343.    However, 
she  acknowledged  that  her  vote  might  have  come  out
differently if she “were deciding this case on a blank can-
vas.”  Ibid. 

Finally,  Judge  Bryson  concurred  in  part  and  dissented
in  part,  concluding  that  isolated  DNA  is  not  patent  eli- 
gible.  As an initial matter, he emphasized that the break-
ing of chemical bonds was not dispositive: “[T]here is no magic
to a chemical bond that requires us to recognize a new prod- 
uct  when  a  chemical  bond  is  created  or  broken.”    Id., 
at 1351.  Instead, he relied on the fact that “[t]he nucleo-
tide  sequences  of  the  claimed  molecules  are  the  same  as
the  nucleotide  sequences  found  in  naturally  occurring
human genes.”  Id., at 1355.  Judge Bryson then concluded 
that  genetic  “structural  similarity  dwarfs  the  significance