Opinion ID: 791772
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Final Rejection

Text: 10 In a final rejection, dated September 6, 2001, the examiner rejected claim 1 for lack of utility under § 101. The examiner found that the claimed ESTs were not supported by a specific and substantial utility. She concluded that the disclosed uses were not specific to the claimed ESTs, but instead were generally applicable to any EST. For example, the examiner noted that any EST may serve as a molecular tag to isolate genetic regions. She also concluded that the claimed ESTs lacked a substantial utility because there was no known use for the proteins produced as final products resulting from processes involving the claimed ESTs. The examiner stated: Utilities that require or constitute carrying out further research to identify or reasonably confirm a `real world' context of use are not substantial utilities. 11 The examiner also rejected the claimed application for lack of enablement under § 112, first paragraph. She reasoned that one skilled in the art would not know how to use the claimed ESTs because the '643 application did not disclose a specific and substantial utility for them. 12 On July 19, 2000, Fisher filed a notice of appeal with the Board.