Consumer Groups File Comments Supporting Stem Cell Patent Rejection

Two consumer groups have filed comments with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office supporting its rejection of human embryonic stem cell patent claims asserted by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) because the claimed advances are obvious in the light of previous stem cell research, the groups say.

Last July the groups, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) challenged the patents because they are hindering stem cell research.

Four internationally known stem cell scientists, Douglas Melton of Harvard University, Alan Trounson of Monash University in Australia, Chad Cowan of Harvard University and Jeanne Loring of the Burnham Institute for Medical Research, filed declarations supporting the consumer groups and the PTO's earlier finding that the work done by James Thomson does not deserve a patent.

In papers filed on Friday, FTCR and PUBPAT say that although WARF has narrowed its claims and made several arguments in its response to the PTO "none of the Patent Owners' arguments have sufficient merit to overcome the rejections."

"I very much believe Dr. Thomson deserves the scientific and public recognition he has received," Melton's declaration says. "However, he deserves that recognition because he undertook the arduous and timely task of getting fresh and high quality embryos to use as starting material for his work, and sufficient funding for such research, not because he did anything that was inventive... His perseverance and commitment deserve recognition and accolades. But I believe that had any other stem cell scientist been given the same starting material and financial support, they could have made the same accomplishment, because the science required to isolate and maintain human embryonic stem cells was obvious."

WARF holds three stem cell patents, numbers '780, '806 and '913, based on work done by Thomson. The PTO granted the requests for re-examination and in March rejected all the claims of all three patents. WARF had the opportunity to respond to all three rejections. The rules applicable to the'913 case under a so called "inter partes" re-examination allow the challengers to comment on WARF's response in that proceeding.

"What Dr. Thomson did was admirable," says John Simpson FTCR Stem Cell Project director. "It just isn't patentable."






Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.