Article discusses the utility requirement before Brenner where the Court paid scant attention to the requirement and basically held the meaning of utility to be the invention's function in the market and whether or not the public would consume it. The author suggests several readings of Brenner:(1)utility requirement operates to distinguish research from applied technology and (2)substantial utility. The author then moves to the PTO's new guidelines as of 1995, and determines that the definition is now a two step way to not find utility: (1) if there is no apparent reason for the applicant to believe there is a use or (2) the applicant is not credible in the assertion of use.
Excerpts and Summaries
Thursday 28 of May, 2009 14:47:10 GMT by Unknown
Tuesday 01 of September, 2009 23:24:18 GMT by Unknown