Patents

Decision Information

Decision Content

                        DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER

 

      STATUTORY - S.2(d): Process and its Product Comprising Living

                       Microorganism

 

      Process and its product for the production of a composition

  associating a new attenuated strain with a carrier is not

  excluded because of the association of living microorganisms.

 

  FINAL ACTION: Overruled.

 

               ****************************

 

      This decision deals with a request for review by the Commissioner

 

  of Patents of the Examiner's Final Action dated October 28, 1971 on

 

  application 911,153. This application was filed in the name of Herbert

 

  W. Smith and refers to "Vaccines".

 

  In the prosecution terminated by the Final Action the examiner

 

refused the application for reasons, first that the claims are directed

 

  to a composition of an amended living microorganism with a carrier, and

 

  the formation of the said composition does not represent a patentable

 

  invention according to Section 2(d), and secondly that the association

 

  of the said microorganism with a carrier is not a patentable process

 

  since there is no invention in the step of "association" or "dilution".

 

  At the outset the examiner was following Office policy with respect

 

  to living matter when the Final Action was written. However, this

 

  rejection is withdrawn in view of a change in policy as set out in a

 

 recent Commissioner's Decision which held that processes and the

 

  products thereof in the microbiological field are not excluded from

 

  patentability under Section 2(d) of the Patent Act provided the

 

  prerequisites of novelty, unobviousness and, more particularly, utility

 

  are satisfied.

 

  With respect to the second ground of rejection, "... that the

 

  association of said microorganism with a carrier is not a patentable

 

  process since them is no invention in the step of association or

 

  dilution.", claims 9-14 inclusive were refused without further explanation.

 

  First, the specification must be analysed with respect to the state of the

 

  relevant prior art, to decide where the invention lies, for this will

 

  aid in the determination of what form of claims will be allowed.

 

   This invention relates to a vaccine composition and the process

 

of making the composition. Claim 9 reads as follows:

 

A process for the production of a vaccine composition

comprising associating the attenuated strain of Salmonella

choleraesuis having the reference number A.T.C.C. 15478

with a pharmaceutically acceptable diluent.

 

Having studied the application the Board takes note of the applicant's

 

response of February 4, 1971, ".., the process starts with a new product

 

because the attenuated strain that is employed has been produced by the

 

applicant for the first time and the resulting composition is also new.",

 

to which no objection has been made.

 

   Once this fact is established the Final Action on the second ground

 

of rejection appears to be directly contrary to the teaching of the

 

Supreme Court in the Commissioner of Patents v. Ciba Limited (1959) S.C.R.

 

378, 272 C.P.R. 82. In this decision it was held that the process was

 

patentable because it started with a new material and produced a new and

 

useful product or in other words the discovery of "utility" in a chemical

 

compound was sufficient to entitle the inventor to a patent for the

 

product and the process whereby it was manufactured._

 

   In the circumstance, therefore, the Board is satisfied that if the

 

   vaccine composition is patentable, to which no objection has been taken,

 

there should be no objection to the process whereby it is manufactured,

 

and recommends that the Final Action be withdrawn.

 

                                             R.E.Thomas,

                                         Chairman, Patent Appeal Board.

 

   I concur with the findings of the Patent Appeal Board and withdraw

 

   the Final Action and return the application to the examiner for resumption

 

   of prosecution.

 

                                                 Decision accordingly,

 

                                                 A.M. Laidlaw,

                                                 Commissioner of Patents.

 

Dated at Ottawa, Ontario,

this 8th day of November, 1972.

 

Agent for Applicant

 

Messrs  Fetherstonhaugh & Co.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.