Although the selected counterpart should be in its natural state, examiners should take care not to confuse the counterpart with other material that may occur naturally with, or adjacent to, the counterpart. For example, assume that applicant claims a nucleic acid having a nucleotide sequence derived from naturally occurring gene B. Although gene B occurs in nature as part of a chromosome, the closest natural counterpart for the claimed nucleic acid is gene B, and not the whole chromosome. See, e.g., Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591-94, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979-81 (2013) (comparing isolated BRCA1 genes and BRCA1 cDNA molecules to naturally occurring BRCA1 gene); Roche Molecular System, Inc. v. CEPHEID, 905 F.3d 1363, 1371, 128 USPQ2d 1221, 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (comparing claimed primers to “their corresponding nucleotide sequences on the naturally occurring DNA”). Similarly, assume that applicant claims a single-stranded piece of DNA (a primer) having a nucleotide sequence derived from the sense strand of naturally occurring nucleic acid C. Although nucleic acid C occurs in nature as a double-stranded molecule having a sense and an antisense strand, the closest natural counterpart for the claimed nucleic acid is the sense strand of C only. See, e.g., University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 760, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (comparing single-stranded nucleic acid to the same strand found in nature, even though “single-stranded DNA cannot be found in the human body”).

Although the selected counterpart should be in its natural state, examiners should take care not to confuse the counterpart with other material that may occur naturally with, or adjacent to, the counterpart. For example, assume that applicant claims a nucleic acid having a nucleotide sequence derived from naturally occurring gene B. Although gene B occurs in nature as part of a chromosome, the closest natural counterpart for the claimed nucleic acid is gene B, and not the whole chromosome. See, e.g., Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591-94, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979-81 (2013) (comparing isolated BRCA1 genes and BRCA1 cDNA molecules to naturally occurring BRCA1 gene); Roche Molecular System, Inc. v. CEPHEID, 905 F.3d 1363, 1371, 128 USPQ2d 1221, 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (comparing claimed primers to “their corresponding nucleotide sequences on the naturally occurring DNA”). Similarly, assume that applicant claims a single-stranded piece of DNA (a primer) having a nucleotide sequence derived from the sense strand of naturally occurring nucleic acid C. Although nucleic acid C occurs in nature as a double-stranded molecule having a sense and an antisense strand, the closest natural counterpart for the claimed nucleic acid is the sense strand of C only. See, e.g., University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 760, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (comparing single-stranded nucleic acid to the same strand found in nature, even though “single-stranded DNA cannot be found in the human body”).

Although the selected counterpart should be in its natural state, examiners should take care not to confuse the counterpart with other material that may occur naturally with, or adjacent to, the counterpart. For example, assume that applicant claims a nucleic acid having a nucleotide sequence derived from naturally occurring gene B. Although gene B occurs in nature as part of a chromosome, the closest natural counterpart for the claimed nucleic acid is gene B, and not the whole chromosome. See, e.g., Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591-94, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979-81 (2013) (comparing isolated BRCA1 genes and BRCA1 cDNA molecules to naturally occurring BRCA1 gene); Roche Molecular System, Inc. v. CEPHEID, 905 F.3d 1363, 1371, 128 USPQ2d 1221, 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (comparing claimed primers to “their corresponding nucleotide sequences on the naturally occurring DNA”). Similarly, assume that applicant claims a single-stranded piece of DNA (a primer) having a nucleotide sequence derived from the sense strand of naturally occurring nucleic acid C. Although nucleic acid C occurs in nature as a double-stranded molecule having a sense and an antisense strand, the closest natural counterpart for the claimed nucleic acid is the sense strand of C only. See, e.g., University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 760, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (comparing single-stranded nucleic acid to the same strand found in nature, even though “single-stranded DNA cannot be found in the human body”).

Although the selected counterpart should be in its natural state, examiners should take care not to confuse the counterpart with other material that may occur naturally with, or adjacent to, the counterpart. For example, assume that applicant claims a nucleic acid having a nucleotide sequence derived from naturally occurring gene B. Although gene B occurs in nature as part of a chromosome, the closest natural counterpart for the claimed nucleic acid is gene B, and not the whole chromosome. See, e.g., Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591-94, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979-81 (2013) (comparing isolated BRCA1 genes and BRCA1 cDNA molecules to naturally occurring BRCA1 gene); Roche Molecular System, Inc. v. CEPHEID, 905 F.3d 1363, 1371, 128 USPQ2d 1221, 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (comparing claimed primers to “their corresponding nucleotide sequences on the naturally occurring DNA”). Similarly, assume that applicant claims a single-stranded piece of DNA (a primer) having a nucleotide sequence derived from the sense strand of naturally occurring nucleic acid C. Although nucleic acid C occurs in nature as a double-stranded molecule having a sense and an antisense strand, the closest natural counterpart for the claimed nucleic acid is the sense strand of C only. See, e.g., University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 760, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (comparing single-stranded nucleic acid to the same strand found in nature, even though “single-stranded DNA cannot be found in the human body”).

Although the selected counterpart should be in its natural state, examiners should take care not to confuse the counterpart with other material that may occur naturally with, or adjacent to, the counterpart. For example, assume that applicant claims a nucleic acid having a nucleotide sequence derived from naturally occurring gene B. Although gene B occurs in nature as part of a chromosome, the closest natural counterpart for the claimed nucleic acid is gene B, and not the whole chromosome. See, e.g., Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591-94, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979-81 (2013) (comparing isolated BRCA1 genes and BRCA1 cDNA molecules to naturally occurring BRCA1 gene); Roche Molecular System, Inc. v. CEPHEID, 905 F.3d 1363, 1371, 128 USPQ2d 1221, 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (comparing claimed primers to “their corresponding nucleotide sequences on the naturally occurring DNA”). Similarly, assume that applicant claims a single-stranded piece of DNA (a primer) having a nucleotide sequence derived from the sense strand of naturally occurring nucleic acid C. Although nucleic acid C occurs in nature as a double-stranded molecule having a sense and an antisense strand, the closest natural counterpart for the claimed nucleic acid is the sense strand of C only. See, e.g., University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 760, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (comparing single-stranded nucleic acid to the same strand found in nature, even though “single-stranded DNA cannot be found in the human body”).

Appropriate characteristics must be possessed by the claimed product, because it is the claim that must define the invention to be patented. Cf. Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1338, 110 USPQ2d at 1673 (unclaimed characteristics could not contribute to eligibility). Examiners can identify the characteristics possessed by the claimed product by looking at what is recited in the claim language and encompassed within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the nature-based product. In some claims, a characteristic may be explicitly recited. For example, in a claim to “deoxyribose”, the recited chemical name informs those in the art of the structural characteristics of the product (i.e., the “deoxy” prefix indicates that a hydroxyl group has been removed as compared to ribose). In other claims, the characteristic may be apparent from the broadest reasonable interpretation even though it is not explicitly recited in the claim. For example, in a claim to “isolated gene B,” the examiner would need to rely on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “isolated gene B” to determine what characteristics the isolated gene has, e.g., what its nucleotide sequence is, and what, if any, protein it encodes.

Appropriate characteristics must be possessed by the claimed product, because it is the claim that must define the invention to be patented. Cf. Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1338, 110 USPQ2d at 1673 (unclaimed characteristics could not contribute to eligibility). Examiners can identify the characteristics possessed by the claimed product by looking at what is recited in the claim language and encompassed within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the nature-based product. In some claims, a characteristic may be explicitly recited. For example, in a claim to “deoxyribose”, the recited chemical name informs those in the art of the structural characteristics of the product (i.e., the “deoxy” prefix indicates that a hydroxyl group has been removed as compared to ribose). In other claims, the characteristic may be apparent from the broadest reasonable interpretation even though it is not explicitly recited in the claim. For example, in a claim to “isolated gene B,” the examiner would need to rely on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “isolated gene B” to determine what characteristics the isolated gene has, e.g., what its nucleotide sequence is, and what, if any, protein it encodes.

Appropriate characteristics must be possessed by the claimed product, because it is the claim that must define the invention to be patented. Cf. Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1338, 110 USPQ2d at 1673 (unclaimed characteristics could not contribute to eligibility). Examiners can identify the characteristics possessed by the claimed product by looking at what is recited in the claim language and encompassed within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the nature-based product. In some claims, a characteristic may be explicitly recited. For example, in a claim to “deoxyribose”, the recited chemical name informs those in the art of the structural characteristics of the product (i.e., the “deoxy” prefix indicates that a hydroxyl group has been removed as compared to ribose). In other claims, the characteristic may be apparent from the broadest reasonable interpretation even though it is not explicitly recited in the claim. For example, in a claim to “isolated gene B,” the examiner would need to rely on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “isolated gene B” to determine what characteristics the isolated gene has, e.g., what its nucleotide sequence is, and what, if any, protein it encodes.

Appropriate characteristics must be possessed by the claimed product, because it is the claim that must define the invention to be patented. Cf. Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1338, 110 USPQ2d at 1673 (unclaimed characteristics could not contribute to eligibility). Examiners can identify the characteristics possessed by the claimed product by looking at what is recited in the claim language and encompassed within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the nature-based product. In some claims, a characteristic may be explicitly recited. For example, in a claim to “deoxyribose”, the recited chemical name informs those in the art of the structural characteristics of the product (i.e., the “deoxy” prefix indicates that a hydroxyl group has been removed as compared to ribose). In other claims, the characteristic may be apparent from the broadest reasonable interpretation even though it is not explicitly recited in the claim. For example, in a claim to “isolated gene B,” the examiner would need to rely on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “isolated gene B” to determine what characteristics the isolated gene has, e.g., what its nucleotide sequence is, and what, if any, protein it encodes.

Appropriate characteristics must be possessed by the claimed product, because it is the claim that must define the invention to be patented. Cf. Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1338, 110 USPQ2d at 1673 (unclaimed characteristics could not contribute to eligibility). Examiners can identify the characteristics possessed by the claimed product by looking at what is recited in the claim language and encompassed within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the nature-based product. In some claims, a characteristic may be explicitly recited. For example, in a claim to “deoxyribose”, the recited chemical name informs those in the art of the structural characteristics of the product (i.e., the “deoxy” prefix indicates that a hydroxyl group has been removed as compared to ribose). In other claims, the characteristic may be apparent from the broadest reasonable interpretation even though it is not explicitly recited in the claim. For example, in a claim to “isolated gene B,” the examiner would need to rely on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “isolated gene B” to determine what characteristics the isolated gene has, e.g., what its nucleotide sequence is, and what, if any, protein it encodes.

Appropriate characteristics must be possessed by the claimed product, because it is the claim that must define the invention to be patented. Cf. Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1338, 110 USPQ2d at 1673 (unclaimed characteristics could not contribute to eligibility). Examiners can identify the characteristics possessed by the claimed product by looking at what is recited in the claim language and encompassed within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the nature-based product. In some claims, a characteristic may be explicitly recited. For example, in a claim to “deoxyribose”, the recited chemical name informs those in the art of the structural characteristics of the product (i.e., the “deoxy” prefix indicates that a hydroxyl group has been removed as compared to ribose). In other claims, the characteristic may be apparent from the broadest reasonable interpretation even though it is not explicitly recited in the claim. For example, in a claim to “isolated gene B,” the examiner would need to rely on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “isolated gene B” to determine what characteristics the isolated gene has, e.g., what its nucleotide sequence is, and what, if any, protein it encodes.

Appropriate characteristics must be possessed by the claimed product, because it is the claim that must define the invention to be patented. Cf. Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1338, 110 USPQ2d at 1673 (unclaimed characteristics could not contribute to eligibility). Examiners can identify the characteristics possessed by the claimed product by looking at what is recited in the claim language and encompassed within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the nature-based product. In some claims, a characteristic may be explicitly recited. For example, in a claim to “deoxyribose”, the recited chemical name informs those in the art of the structural characteristics of the product (i.e., the “deoxy” prefix indicates that a hydroxyl group has been removed as compared to ribose). In other claims, the characteristic may be apparent from the broadest reasonable interpretation even though it is not explicitly recited in the claim. For example, in a claim to “isolated gene B,” the examiner would need to rely on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “isolated gene B” to determine what characteristics the isolated gene has, e.g., what its nucleotide sequence is, and what, if any, protein it encodes.

Examples of biological or pharmacological functions or activities include, but are not limited to:

• i. the protein-encoding information of a nucleic acid, Myriad, 569 U.S. at 590-91, 106 USPQ2d at 1979;
• ii. the ability of complementary nucleotide sequences to bind to each other, Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d at 760-61, 113 USPQ2d at 1244;
• iii. the properties and functions of bacteria such as the ability to infect certain leguminous plants, Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130-31, 76 USPQ2d at 281-82;
• iv. the ability to degrade certain hydrocarbons, Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 310, 206 USPQ2d at 195; and
• v. the ability of vitamin C to prevent and treat scurvy, In re King, 107 F.2d 618, 27 CCPA 754, 756-57, 43 USPQ 400, 401-402 (CCPA 1939).

Examples of structure and form include, but are not limited to:

• i. physical structure or form such as the physical presence of plasmids in a bacterial cell, Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 305 and n.1, 206 USPQ2d at 195 and n.1;
• ii. chemical structure and form such as a chemical being a “nonsalt” and a “crystalline substance”, Parke-Davis, 189 F. at 100, 103;
• iii. genetic structure such as the nucleotide sequence of DNA, Myriad, 569 U.S. at 590, 594-95, 106 USPQ2d at 1979, 1981; and
• iv. the genetic makeup (genotype) of a cell or organism, Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1338-39, 110 USPQ2d at 1672-73.

In Ambry Genetics, the court identified claimed DNA fragments known as “primers” as products of nature, because they lacked markedly different characteristics. University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp., 774 F.3d 755, 113 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The claimed primers were single-stranded pieces of DNA, each of which corresponded to a naturally occurring double-stranded DNA sequence in or near the BRCA genes. The patentee argued that these primers had markedly different structural characteristics from the natural DNA, because the primers were synthetically created and because “single-stranded DNA cannot be found in the human body”. The court disagreed, concluding that the primers’ structural characteristics were not markedly different than the corresponding strands of DNA in nature, because the primers and their counterparts had the same genetic structure and nucleotide sequence. 774 F.3d at 760, 113 USPQ2d at 1243-44. The patentee also argued that the primers had a different function than when they are part of the DNA strand because when isolated as a primer, a primer can be used as a starting material for a DNA polymerization process. The court disagreed, because this ability to serve as a starting material is innate to DNA itself, and was not created or altered by the patentee:

In Ambry Genetics, the court identified claimed DNA fragments known as “primers” as products of nature, because they lacked markedly different characteristics. University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp., 774 F.3d 755, 113 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The claimed primers were single-stranded pieces of DNA, each of which corresponded to a naturally occurring double-stranded DNA sequence in or near the BRCA genes. The patentee argued that these primers had markedly different structural characteristics from the natural DNA, because the primers were synthetically created and because “single-stranded DNA cannot be found in the human body”. The court disagreed, concluding that the primers’ structural characteristics were not markedly different than the corresponding strands of DNA in nature, because the primers and their counterparts had the same genetic structure and nucleotide sequence. 774 F.3d at 760, 113 USPQ2d at 1243-44. The patentee also argued that the primers had a different function than when they are part of the DNA strand because when isolated as a primer, a primer can be used as a starting material for a DNA polymerization process. The court disagreed, because this ability to serve as a starting material is innate to DNA itself, and was not created or altered by the patentee:

In Ambry Genetics, the court identified claimed DNA fragments known as “primers” as products of nature, because they lacked markedly different characteristics. University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp., 774 F.3d 755, 113 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The claimed primers were single-stranded pieces of DNA, each of which corresponded to a naturally occurring double-stranded DNA sequence in or near the BRCA genes. The patentee argued that these primers had markedly different structural characteristics from the natural DNA, because the primers were synthetically created and because “single-stranded DNA cannot be found in the human body”. The court disagreed, concluding that the primers’ structural characteristics were not markedly different than the corresponding strands of DNA in nature, because the primers and their counterparts had the same genetic structure and nucleotide sequence. 774 F.3d at 760, 113 USPQ2d at 1243-44. The patentee also argued that the primers had a different function than when they are part of the DNA strand because when isolated as a primer, a primer can be used as a starting material for a DNA polymerization process. The court disagreed, because this ability to serve as a starting material is innate to DNA itself, and was not created or altered by the patentee:

In Ambry Genetics, the court identified claimed DNA fragments known as “primers” as products of nature, because they lacked markedly different characteristics. University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp., 774 F.3d 755, 113 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The claimed primers were single-stranded pieces of DNA, each of which corresponded to a naturally occurring double-stranded DNA sequence in or near the BRCA genes. The patentee argued that these primers had markedly different structural characteristics from the natural DNA, because the primers were synthetically created and because “single-stranded DNA cannot be found in the human body”. The court disagreed, concluding that the primers’ structural characteristics were not markedly different than the corresponding strands of DNA in nature, because the primers and their counterparts had the same genetic structure and nucleotide sequence. 774 F.3d at 760, 113 USPQ2d at 1243-44. The patentee also argued that the primers had a different function than when they are part of the DNA strand because when isolated as a primer, a primer can be used as a starting material for a DNA polymerization process. The court disagreed, because this ability to serve as a starting material is innate to DNA itself, and was not created or altered by the patentee:

In Ambry Genetics, the court identified claimed DNA fragments known as “primers” as products of nature, because they lacked markedly different characteristics. University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp., 774 F.3d 755, 113 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The claimed primers were single-stranded pieces of DNA, each of which corresponded to a naturally occurring double-stranded DNA sequence in or near the BRCA genes. The patentee argued that these primers had markedly different structural characteristics from the natural DNA, because the primers were synthetically created and because “single-stranded DNA cannot be found in the human body”. The court disagreed, concluding that the primers’ structural characteristics were not markedly different than the corresponding strands of DNA in nature, because the primers and their counterparts had the same genetic structure and nucleotide sequence. 774 F.3d at 760, 113 USPQ2d at 1243-44. The patentee also argued that the primers had a different function than when they are part of the DNA strand because when isolated as a primer, a primer can be used as a starting material for a DNA polymerization process. The court disagreed, because this ability to serve as a starting material is innate to DNA itself, and was not created or altered by the patentee:

In Ambry Genetics, the court identified claimed DNA fragments known as “primers” as products of nature, because they lacked markedly different characteristics. University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp., 774 F.3d 755, 113 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The claimed primers were single-stranded pieces of DNA, each of which corresponded to a naturally occurring double-stranded DNA sequence in or near the BRCA genes. The patentee argued that these primers had markedly different structural characteristics from the natural DNA, because the primers were synthetically created and because “single-stranded DNA cannot be found in the human body”. The court disagreed, concluding that the primers’ structural characteristics were not markedly different than the corresponding strands of DNA in nature, because the primers and their counterparts had the same genetic structure and nucleotide sequence. 774 F.3d at 760, 113 USPQ2d at 1243-44. The patentee also argued that the primers had a different function than when they are part of the DNA strand because when isolated as a primer, a primer can be used as a starting material for a DNA polymerization process. The court disagreed, because this ability to serve as a starting material is innate to DNA itself, and was not created or altered by the patentee:

In Ambry Genetics, the court identified claimed DNA fragments known as “primers” as products of nature, because they lacked markedly different characteristics. University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp., 774 F.3d 755, 113 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The claimed primers were single-stranded pieces of DNA, each of which corresponded to a naturally occurring double-stranded DNA sequence in or near the BRCA genes. The patentee argued that these primers had markedly different structural characteristics from the natural DNA, because the primers were synthetically created and because “single-stranded DNA cannot be found in the human body”. The court disagreed, concluding that the primers’ structural characteristics were not markedly different than the corresponding strands of DNA in nature, because the primers and their counterparts had the same genetic structure and nucleotide sequence. 774 F.3d at 760, 113 USPQ2d at 1243-44. The patentee also argued that the primers had a different function than when they are part of the DNA strand because when isolated as a primer, a primer can be used as a starting material for a DNA polymerization process. The court disagreed, because this ability to serve as a starting material is innate to DNA itself, and was not created or altered by the patentee:

This section sets forth guidelines for performing the markedly different characteristics analysis, including information on when to perform the analysis, and how to perform the analysis. Examiners should consult these guidelines when performing an eligibility analysis of a claim that recites a nature-based product limitation. Nature-based products, as used herein, include both eligible and ineligible products and merely refer to the types of products subject to the markedly different characteristics analysis used to identify product of nature exceptions.

This section sets forth guidelines for performing the markedly different characteristics analysis, including information on when to perform the analysis, and how to perform the analysis. Examiners should consult these guidelines when performing an eligibility analysis of a claim that recites a nature-based product limitation. Nature-based products, as used herein, include both eligible and ineligible products and merely refer to the types of products subject to the markedly different characteristics analysis used to identify product of nature exceptions.

This section sets forth guidelines for performing the markedly different characteristics analysis, including information on when to perform the analysis, and how to perform the analysis. Examiners should consult these guidelines when performing an eligibility analysis of a claim that recites a nature-based product limitation. Nature-based products, as used herein, include both eligible and ineligible products and merely refer to the types of products subject to the markedly different characteristics analysis used to identify product of nature exceptions.

If the claim includes a nature-based product that has markedly different characteristics, then the claim does not recite a product of nature exception and is eligible (Step 2A: NO) at Pathway B unless the claim recites another exception (such as a law of nature or abstract idea, or a different natural phenomenon). For claims where the entire claim is a single nature-based product (e.g., a claim to “a Lactobacillus bacterium”), once a markedly different characteristic in that product is shown, no further analysis would be necessary for eligibility because no product of nature exception is recited (i.e., Step 2B is not necessary because the answer to Step 2A is NO). For claims including limitations in addition to the nature-based product, examiners should consider whether the claim recites another exception and thus requires further eligibility analysis.

If the claim includes a nature-based product that has markedly different characteristics, then the claim does not recite a product of nature exception and is eligible (Step 2A: NO) at Pathway B unless the claim recites another exception (such as a law of nature or abstract idea, or a different natural phenomenon). For claims where the entire claim is a single nature-based product (e.g., a claim to “a Lactobacillus bacterium”), once a markedly different characteristic in that product is shown, no further analysis would be necessary for eligibility because no product of nature exception is recited (i.e., Step 2B is not necessary because the answer to Step 2A is NO). For claims including limitations in addition to the nature-based product, examiners should consider whether the claim recites another exception and thus requires further eligibility analysis.

If the claim includes a nature-based product that has markedly different characteristics, then the claim does not recite a product of nature exception and is eligible (Step 2A: NO) at Pathway B unless the claim recites another exception (such as a law of nature or abstract idea, or a different natural phenomenon). For claims where the entire claim is a single nature-based product (e.g., a claim to “a Lactobacillus bacterium”), once a markedly different characteristic in that product is shown, no further analysis would be necessary for eligibility because no product of nature exception is recited (i.e., Step 2B is not necessary because the answer to Step 2A is NO). For claims including limitations in addition to the nature-based product, examiners should consider whether the claim recites another exception and thus requires further eligibility analysis.

In Chakrabarty, the Supreme Court identified a claimed bacterium as a nature-based product having markedly different characteristics. This bacterium had a changed functional characteristic, i.e., it was able to degrade at least two different hydrocarbons as compared to naturally occurring Pseudomonas bacteria that can only degrade a single hydrocarbon. The claimed bacterium also had a different structural characteristic, i.e., it was genetically modified to include more plasmids than are found in a single naturally occurring Pseudomonas bacterium. The Supreme Court considered these changed characteristics to be “markedly different characteristics from any found in nature” due to the additional plasmids and resultant capacity for degrading multiple hydrocarbon components of oil. Therefore, the bacterium was eligible. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 310, 206 USPQ 193, 197 (1980).

In Chakrabarty, the Supreme Court identified a claimed bacterium as a nature-based product having markedly different characteristics. This bacterium had a changed functional characteristic, i.e., it was able to degrade at least two different hydrocarbons as compared to naturally occurring Pseudomonas bacteria that can only degrade a single hydrocarbon. The claimed bacterium also had a different structural characteristic, i.e., it was genetically modified to include more plasmids than are found in a single naturally occurring Pseudomonas bacterium. The Supreme Court considered these changed characteristics to be “markedly different characteristics from any found in nature” due to the additional plasmids and resultant capacity for degrading multiple hydrocarbon components of oil. Therefore, the bacterium was eligible. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 310, 206 USPQ 193, 197 (1980).

In Chakrabarty, the Supreme Court identified a claimed bacterium as a nature-based product having markedly different characteristics. This bacterium had a changed functional characteristic, i.e., it was able to degrade at least two different hydrocarbons as compared to naturally occurring Pseudomonas bacteria that can only degrade a single hydrocarbon. The claimed bacterium also had a different structural characteristic, i.e., it was genetically modified to include more plasmids than are found in a single naturally occurring Pseudomonas bacterium. The Supreme Court considered these changed characteristics to be “markedly different characteristics from any found in nature” due to the additional plasmids and resultant capacity for degrading multiple hydrocarbon components of oil. Therefore, the bacterium was eligible. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 310, 206 USPQ 193, 197 (1980).

In Chakrabarty, the Supreme Court identified a claimed bacterium as a nature-based product having markedly different characteristics. This bacterium had a changed functional characteristic, i.e., it was able to degrade at least two different hydrocarbons as compared to naturally occurring Pseudomonas bacteria that can only degrade a single hydrocarbon. The claimed bacterium also had a different structural characteristic, i.e., it was genetically modified to include more plasmids than are found in a single naturally occurring Pseudomonas bacterium. The Supreme Court considered these changed characteristics to be “markedly different characteristics from any found in nature” due to the additional plasmids and resultant capacity for degrading multiple hydrocarbon components of oil. Therefore, the bacterium was eligible. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 310, 206 USPQ 193, 197 (1980).

In Roslin, the court concluded that claimed clones of farm animals were products of nature, because they lacked markedly different characteristics from the counterpart farm animals found in nature. In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333, 1337, 110 USPQ2d 1668, 1671 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The inventor created its clones (which included the famous cloned sheep named Dolly) by transferring the genetic material of a donor into an oocyte (egg cell), letting the oocyte develop into an embryo, and then implanting the embryo into a surrogate animal where it developed into a baby animal. The applicant argued that the clones, including Dolly, were eligible because they were created via human ingenuity, and had phenotypic differences such as shape, size and behavior compared to their donors. The court was unpersuaded, explaining that the clones were exact genetic replicas of the donors and thus did not possess markedly different characteristics. 750 F.3d at 1337, 110 USPQ2d at 1671-72 (“Roslin’s chief innovation was the preservation of the donor DNA such that the clone is an exact copy of the mammal from which the somatic cell was taken. Such a copy is not eligible for patent protection.”). The court noted that the alleged phenotypic differences (e.g., the fact that Dolly may have been taller or heavier than her donor) could not make the clones markedly different because these differences were not claimed. 750 F.3d at 1338, 110 USPQ2d at 1672. See also Roche Molecular System, Inc. v. CEPHEID, 905 F.3d 1363, 1370, 128 USPQ2d 1221, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alleged structural differences between linear primers and their counterparts on a circular chromosome were neither claimed nor relevant to the eligibility inquiry).

In Roslin, the court concluded that claimed clones of farm animals were products of nature, because they lacked markedly different characteristics from the counterpart farm animals found in nature. In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333, 1337, 110 USPQ2d 1668, 1671 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The inventor created its clones (which included the famous cloned sheep named Dolly) by transferring the genetic material of a donor into an oocyte (egg cell), letting the oocyte develop into an embryo, and then implanting the embryo into a surrogate animal where it developed into a baby animal. The applicant argued that the clones, including Dolly, were eligible because they were created via human ingenuity, and had phenotypic differences such as shape, size and behavior compared to their donors. The court was unpersuaded, explaining that the clones were exact genetic replicas of the donors and thus did not possess markedly different characteristics. 750 F.3d at 1337, 110 USPQ2d at 1671-72 (“Roslin’s chief innovation was the preservation of the donor DNA such that the clone is an exact copy of the mammal from which the somatic cell was taken. Such a copy is not eligible for patent protection.”). The court noted that the alleged phenotypic differences (e.g., the fact that Dolly may have been taller or heavier than her donor) could not make the clones markedly different because these differences were not claimed. 750 F.3d at 1338, 110 USPQ2d at 1672. See also Roche Molecular System, Inc. v. CEPHEID, 905 F.3d 1363, 1370, 128 USPQ2d 1221, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alleged structural differences between linear primers and their counterparts on a circular chromosome were neither claimed nor relevant to the eligibility inquiry).

In Roslin, the court concluded that claimed clones of farm animals were products of nature, because they lacked markedly different characteristics from the counterpart farm animals found in nature. In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333, 1337, 110 USPQ2d 1668, 1671 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The inventor created its clones (which included the famous cloned sheep named Dolly) by transferring the genetic material of a donor into an oocyte (egg cell), letting the oocyte develop into an embryo, and then implanting the embryo into a surrogate animal where it developed into a baby animal. The applicant argued that the clones, including Dolly, were eligible because they were created via human ingenuity, and had phenotypic differences such as shape, size and behavior compared to their donors. The court was unpersuaded, explaining that the clones were exact genetic replicas of the donors and thus did not possess markedly different characteristics. 750 F.3d at 1337, 110 USPQ2d at 1671-72 (“Roslin’s chief innovation was the preservation of the donor DNA such that the clone is an exact copy of the mammal from which the somatic cell was taken. Such a copy is not eligible for patent protection.”). The court noted that the alleged phenotypic differences (e.g., the fact that Dolly may have been taller or heavier than her donor) could not make the clones markedly different because these differences were not claimed. 750 F.3d at 1338, 110 USPQ2d at 1672. See also Roche Molecular System, Inc. v. CEPHEID, 905 F.3d 1363, 1370, 128 USPQ2d 1221, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alleged structural differences between linear primers and their counterparts on a circular chromosome were neither claimed nor relevant to the eligibility inquiry).

In Roslin, the court concluded that claimed clones of farm animals were products of nature, because they lacked markedly different characteristics from the counterpart farm animals found in nature. In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333, 1337, 110 USPQ2d 1668, 1671 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The inventor created its clones (which included the famous cloned sheep named Dolly) by transferring the genetic material of a donor into an oocyte (egg cell), letting the oocyte develop into an embryo, and then implanting the embryo into a surrogate animal where it developed into a baby animal. The applicant argued that the clones, including Dolly, were eligible because they were created via human ingenuity, and had phenotypic differences such as shape, size and behavior compared to their donors. The court was unpersuaded, explaining that the clones were exact genetic replicas of the donors and thus did not possess markedly different characteristics. 750 F.3d at 1337, 110 USPQ2d at 1671-72 (“Roslin’s chief innovation was the preservation of the donor DNA such that the clone is an exact copy of the mammal from which the somatic cell was taken. Such a copy is not eligible for patent protection.”). The court noted that the alleged phenotypic differences (e.g., the fact that Dolly may have been taller or heavier than her donor) could not make the clones markedly different because these differences were not claimed. 750 F.3d at 1338, 110 USPQ2d at 1672. See also Roche Molecular System, Inc. v. CEPHEID, 905 F.3d 1363, 1370, 128 USPQ2d 1221, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alleged structural differences between linear primers and their counterparts on a circular chromosome were neither claimed nor relevant to the eligibility inquiry).

In Roslin, the court concluded that claimed clones of farm animals were products of nature, because they lacked markedly different characteristics from the counterpart farm animals found in nature. In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333, 1337, 110 USPQ2d 1668, 1671 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The inventor created its clones (which included the famous cloned sheep named Dolly) by transferring the genetic material of a donor into an oocyte (egg cell), letting the oocyte develop into an embryo, and then implanting the embryo into a surrogate animal where it developed into a baby animal. The applicant argued that the clones, including Dolly, were eligible because they were created via human ingenuity, and had phenotypic differences such as shape, size and behavior compared to their donors. The court was unpersuaded, explaining that the clones were exact genetic replicas of the donors and thus did not possess markedly different characteristics. 750 F.3d at 1337, 110 USPQ2d at 1671-72 (“Roslin’s chief innovation was the preservation of the donor DNA such that the clone is an exact copy of the mammal from which the somatic cell was taken. Such a copy is not eligible for patent protection.”). The court noted that the alleged phenotypic differences (e.g., the fact that Dolly may have been taller or heavier than her donor) could not make the clones markedly different because these differences were not claimed. 750 F.3d at 1338, 110 USPQ2d at 1672. See also Roche Molecular System, Inc. v. CEPHEID, 905 F.3d 1363, 1370, 128 USPQ2d 1221, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alleged structural differences between linear primers and their counterparts on a circular chromosome were neither claimed nor relevant to the eligibility inquiry).

In Roslin, the court concluded that claimed clones of farm animals were products of nature, because they lacked markedly different characteristics from the counterpart farm animals found in nature. In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333, 1337, 110 USPQ2d 1668, 1671 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The inventor created its clones (which included the famous cloned sheep named Dolly) by transferring the genetic material of a donor into an oocyte (egg cell), letting the oocyte develop into an embryo, and then implanting the embryo into a surrogate animal where it developed into a baby animal. The applicant argued that the clones, including Dolly, were eligible because they were created via human ingenuity, and had phenotypic differences such as shape, size and behavior compared to their donors. The court was unpersuaded, explaining that the clones were exact genetic replicas of the donors and thus did not possess markedly different characteristics. 750 F.3d at 1337, 110 USPQ2d at 1671-72 (“Roslin’s chief innovation was the preservation of the donor DNA such that the clone is an exact copy of the mammal from which the somatic cell was taken. Such a copy is not eligible for patent protection.”). The court noted that the alleged phenotypic differences (e.g., the fact that Dolly may have been taller or heavier than her donor) could not make the clones markedly different because these differences were not claimed. 750 F.3d at 1338, 110 USPQ2d at 1672. See also Roche Molecular System, Inc. v. CEPHEID, 905 F.3d 1363, 1370, 128 USPQ2d 1221, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alleged structural differences between linear primers and their counterparts on a circular chromosome were neither claimed nor relevant to the eligibility inquiry).

In Roslin, the court concluded that claimed clones of farm animals were products of nature, because they lacked markedly different characteristics from the counterpart farm animals found in nature. In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333, 1337, 110 USPQ2d 1668, 1671 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The inventor created its clones (which included the famous cloned sheep named Dolly) by transferring the genetic material of a donor into an oocyte (egg cell), letting the oocyte develop into an embryo, and then implanting the embryo into a surrogate animal where it developed into a baby animal. The applicant argued that the clones, including Dolly, were eligible because they were created via human ingenuity, and had phenotypic differences such as shape, size and behavior compared to their donors. The court was unpersuaded, explaining that the clones were exact genetic replicas of the donors and thus did not possess markedly different characteristics. 750 F.3d at 1337, 110 USPQ2d at 1671-72 (“Roslin’s chief innovation was the preservation of the donor DNA such that the clone is an exact copy of the mammal from which the somatic cell was taken. Such a copy is not eligible for patent protection.”). The court noted that the alleged phenotypic differences (e.g., the fact that Dolly may have been taller or heavier than her donor) could not make the clones markedly different because these differences were not claimed. 750 F.3d at 1338, 110 USPQ2d at 1672. See also Roche Molecular System, Inc. v. CEPHEID, 905 F.3d 1363, 1370, 128 USPQ2d 1221, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alleged structural differences between linear primers and their counterparts on a circular chromosome were neither claimed nor relevant to the eligibility inquiry).

In Roslin, the court concluded that claimed clones of farm animals were products of nature, because they lacked markedly different characteristics from the counterpart farm animals found in nature. In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333, 1337, 110 USPQ2d 1668, 1671 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The inventor created its clones (which included the famous cloned sheep named Dolly) by transferring the genetic material of a donor into an oocyte (egg cell), letting the oocyte develop into an embryo, and then implanting the embryo into a surrogate animal where it developed into a baby animal. The applicant argued that the clones, including Dolly, were eligible because they were created via human ingenuity, and had phenotypic differences such as shape, size and behavior compared to their donors. The court was unpersuaded, explaining that the clones were exact genetic replicas of the donors and thus did not possess markedly different characteristics. 750 F.3d at 1337, 110 USPQ2d at 1671-72 (“Roslin’s chief innovation was the preservation of the donor DNA such that the clone is an exact copy of the mammal from which the somatic cell was taken. Such a copy is not eligible for patent protection.”). The court noted that the alleged phenotypic differences (e.g., the fact that Dolly may have been taller or heavier than her donor) could not make the clones markedly different because these differences were not claimed. 750 F.3d at 1338, 110 USPQ2d at 1672. See also Roche Molecular System, Inc. v. CEPHEID, 905 F.3d 1363, 1370, 128 USPQ2d 1221, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alleged structural differences between linear primers and their counterparts on a circular chromosome were neither claimed nor relevant to the eligibility inquiry).

In Roslin, the court concluded that claimed clones of farm animals were products of nature, because they lacked markedly different characteristics from the counterpart farm animals found in nature. In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333, 1337, 110 USPQ2d 1668, 1671 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The inventor created its clones (which included the famous cloned sheep named Dolly) by transferring the genetic material of a donor into an oocyte (egg cell), letting the oocyte develop into an embryo, and then implanting the embryo into a surrogate animal where it developed into a baby animal. The applicant argued that the clones, including Dolly, were eligible because they were created via human ingenuity, and had phenotypic differences such as shape, size and behavior compared to their donors. The court was unpersuaded, explaining that the clones were exact genetic replicas of the donors and thus did not possess markedly different characteristics. 750 F.3d at 1337, 110 USPQ2d at 1671-72 (“Roslin’s chief innovation was the preservation of the donor DNA such that the clone is an exact copy of the mammal from which the somatic cell was taken. Such a copy is not eligible for patent protection.”). The court noted that the alleged phenotypic differences (e.g., the fact that Dolly may have been taller or heavier than her donor) could not make the clones markedly different because these differences were not claimed. 750 F.3d at 1338, 110 USPQ2d at 1672. See also Roche Molecular System, Inc. v. CEPHEID, 905 F.3d 1363, 1370, 128 USPQ2d 1221, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alleged structural differences between linear primers and their counterparts on a circular chromosome were neither claimed nor relevant to the eligibility inquiry).

When there are multiple counterparts to the nature-based product, the comparison should be made to the closest naturally occurring counterpart. For example, assume that the inventor creates a cloned sheep D by transferring nuclear DNA from a Finn-Dorset sheep into an egg cell (which contains mitochondrial DNA) from a Scottish Blackface sheep. Applicant then claims sheep D. Here, because sheep D was created via combining DNA from two different naturally occurring sheep of different breeds, there is no single closest natural counterpart. The examiner should therefore select the counterpart most closely related to sheep D based on the examiner’s expertise in the particular art. For the example discussed here, the closest counterparts might be naturally occurring Finn-Dorset or Scottish Blackface sheep, as opposed to sheep of a different breed such as Bighorn sheep. Cf. Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1337, 110 USPQ2d at 1671-72 (claimed sheep produced by nuclear transfer into an oocyte and subsequent manipulation of natural embryonic development processes was compared to naturally occurring sheep such as the donor ewe from which the nuclear material was obtained). When the nature-based product is a combination produced from multiple components, the closest counterpart may be the individual nature-based components of the combination. For example, assume that applicant claims an inoculant comprising a mixture of bacteria from different species, e.g., some bacteria of species E and some bacteria of species F. Because there is no counterpart mixture in nature, the closest counterparts to the claimed mixture are the individual components of the mixture, i.e., each naturally occurring species by itself. See, e.g., Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130, 76 USPQ at 281 (comparing claimed mixture of bacterial species to each species as it occurs in nature); Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d at 760, 113 USPQ2d at 1244 (although claimed as a pair, individual primer molecules were compared to corresponding segments of naturally occurring gene sequence); In re Bhagat, 726 Fed. Appx. 772, 778-79 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (comparing claimed mixture of lipids with particular lipid profile to “naturally occurring lipid profiles of walnut oil and olive oil”). See subsection II.C.

When there are multiple counterparts to the nature-based product, the comparison should be made to the closest naturally occurring counterpart. For example, assume that the inventor creates a cloned sheep D by transferring nuclear DNA from a Finn-Dorset sheep into an egg cell (which contains mitochondrial DNA) from a Scottish Blackface sheep. Applicant then claims sheep D. Here, because sheep D was created via combining DNA from two different naturally occurring sheep of different breeds, there is no single closest natural counterpart. The examiner should therefore select the counterpart most closely related to sheep D based on the examiner’s expertise in the particular art. For the example discussed here, the closest counterparts might be naturally occurring Finn-Dorset or Scottish Blackface sheep, as opposed to sheep of a different breed such as Bighorn sheep. Cf. Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1337, 110 USPQ2d at 1671-72 (claimed sheep produced by nuclear transfer into an oocyte and subsequent manipulation of natural embryonic development processes was compared to naturally occurring sheep such as the donor ewe from which the nuclear material was obtained). When the nature-based product is a combination produced from multiple components, the closest counterpart may be the individual nature-based components of the combination. For example, assume that applicant claims an inoculant comprising a mixture of bacteria from different species, e.g., some bacteria of species E and some bacteria of species F. Because there is no counterpart mixture in nature, the closest counterparts to the claimed mixture are the individual components of the mixture, i.e., each naturally occurring species by itself. See, e.g., Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130, 76 USPQ at 281 (comparing claimed mixture of bacterial species to each species as it occurs in nature); Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d at 760, 113 USPQ2d at 1244 (although claimed as a pair, individual primer molecules were compared to corresponding segments of naturally occurring gene sequence); In re Bhagat, 726 Fed. Appx. 772, 778-79 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (comparing claimed mixture of lipids with particular lipid profile to “naturally occurring lipid profiles of walnut oil and olive oil”). See subsection II.C.

When there are multiple counterparts to the nature-based product, the comparison should be made to the closest naturally occurring counterpart. For example, assume that the inventor creates a cloned sheep D by transferring nuclear DNA from a Finn-Dorset sheep into an egg cell (which contains mitochondrial DNA) from a Scottish Blackface sheep. Applicant then claims sheep D. Here, because sheep D was created via combining DNA from two different naturally occurring sheep of different breeds, there is no single closest natural counterpart. The examiner should therefore select the counterpart most closely related to sheep D based on the examiner’s expertise in the particular art. For the example discussed here, the closest counterparts might be naturally occurring Finn-Dorset or Scottish Blackface sheep, as opposed to sheep of a different breed such as Bighorn sheep. Cf. Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1337, 110 USPQ2d at 1671-72 (claimed sheep produced by nuclear transfer into an oocyte and subsequent manipulation of natural embryonic development processes was compared to naturally occurring sheep such as the donor ewe from which the nuclear material was obtained). When the nature-based product is a combination produced from multiple components, the closest counterpart may be the individual nature-based components of the combination. For example, assume that applicant claims an inoculant comprising a mixture of bacteria from different species, e.g., some bacteria of species E and some bacteria of species F. Because there is no counterpart mixture in nature, the closest counterparts to the claimed mixture are the individual components of the mixture, i.e., each naturally occurring species by itself. See, e.g., Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130, 76 USPQ at 281 (comparing claimed mixture of bacterial species to each species as it occurs in nature); Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d at 760, 113 USPQ2d at 1244 (although claimed as a pair, individual primer molecules were compared to corresponding segments of naturally occurring gene sequence); In re Bhagat, 726 Fed. Appx. 772, 778-79 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (comparing claimed mixture of lipids with particular lipid profile to “naturally occurring lipid profiles of walnut oil and olive oil”). See subsection II.C.

When there are multiple counterparts to the nature-based product, the comparison should be made to the closest naturally occurring counterpart. For example, assume that the inventor creates a cloned sheep D by transferring nuclear DNA from a Finn-Dorset sheep into an egg cell (which contains mitochondrial DNA) from a Scottish Blackface sheep. Applicant then claims sheep D. Here, because sheep D was created via combining DNA from two different naturally occurring sheep of different breeds, there is no single closest natural counterpart. The examiner should therefore select the counterpart most closely related to sheep D based on the examiner’s expertise in the particular art. For the example discussed here, the closest counterparts might be naturally occurring Finn-Dorset or Scottish Blackface sheep, as opposed to sheep of a different breed such as Bighorn sheep. Cf. Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1337, 110 USPQ2d at 1671-72 (claimed sheep produced by nuclear transfer into an oocyte and subsequent manipulation of natural embryonic development processes was compared to naturally occurring sheep such as the donor ewe from which the nuclear material was obtained). When the nature-based product is a combination produced from multiple components, the closest counterpart may be the individual nature-based components of the combination. For example, assume that applicant claims an inoculant comprising a mixture of bacteria from different species, e.g., some bacteria of species E and some bacteria of species F. Because there is no counterpart mixture in nature, the closest counterparts to the claimed mixture are the individual components of the mixture, i.e., each naturally occurring species by itself. See, e.g., Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130, 76 USPQ at 281 (comparing claimed mixture of bacterial species to each species as it occurs in nature); Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d at 760, 113 USPQ2d at 1244 (although claimed as a pair, individual primer molecules were compared to corresponding segments of naturally occurring gene sequence); In re Bhagat, 726 Fed. Appx. 772, 778-79 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (comparing claimed mixture of lipids with particular lipid profile to “naturally occurring lipid profiles of walnut oil and olive oil”). See subsection II.C.

When there are multiple counterparts to the nature-based product, the comparison should be made to the closest naturally occurring counterpart. For example, assume that the inventor creates a cloned sheep D by transferring nuclear DNA from a Finn-Dorset sheep into an egg cell (which contains mitochondrial DNA) from a Scottish Blackface sheep. Applicant then claims sheep D. Here, because sheep D was created via combining DNA from two different naturally occurring sheep of different breeds, there is no single closest natural counterpart. The examiner should therefore select the counterpart most closely related to sheep D based on the examiner’s expertise in the particular art. For the example discussed here, the closest counterparts might be naturally occurring Finn-Dorset or Scottish Blackface sheep, as opposed to sheep of a different breed such as Bighorn sheep. Cf. Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1337, 110 USPQ2d at 1671-72 (claimed sheep produced by nuclear transfer into an oocyte and subsequent manipulation of natural embryonic development processes was compared to naturally occurring sheep such as the donor ewe from which the nuclear material was obtained). When the nature-based product is a combination produced from multiple components, the closest counterpart may be the individual nature-based components of the combination. For example, assume that applicant claims an inoculant comprising a mixture of bacteria from different species, e.g., some bacteria of species E and some bacteria of species F. Because there is no counterpart mixture in nature, the closest counterparts to the claimed mixture are the individual components of the mixture, i.e., each naturally occurring species by itself. See, e.g., Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130, 76 USPQ at 281 (comparing claimed mixture of bacterial species to each species as it occurs in nature); Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d at 760, 113 USPQ2d at 1244 (although claimed as a pair, individual primer molecules were compared to corresponding segments of naturally occurring gene sequence); In re Bhagat, 726 Fed. Appx. 772, 778-79 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (comparing claimed mixture of lipids with particular lipid profile to “naturally occurring lipid profiles of walnut oil and olive oil”). See subsection II.C.

When there are multiple counterparts to the nature-based product, the comparison should be made to the closest naturally occurring counterpart. For example, assume that the inventor creates a cloned sheep D by transferring nuclear DNA from a Finn-Dorset sheep into an egg cell (which contains mitochondrial DNA) from a Scottish Blackface sheep. Applicant then claims sheep D. Here, because sheep D was created via combining DNA from two different naturally occurring sheep of different breeds, there is no single closest natural counterpart. The examiner should therefore select the counterpart most closely related to sheep D based on the examiner’s expertise in the particular art. For the example discussed here, the closest counterparts might be naturally occurring Finn-Dorset or Scottish Blackface sheep, as opposed to sheep of a different breed such as Bighorn sheep. Cf. Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1337, 110 USPQ2d at 1671-72 (claimed sheep produced by nuclear transfer into an oocyte and subsequent manipulation of natural embryonic development processes was compared to naturally occurring sheep such as the donor ewe from which the nuclear material was obtained). When the nature-based product is a combination produced from multiple components, the closest counterpart may be the individual nature-based components of the combination. For example, assume that applicant claims an inoculant comprising a mixture of bacteria from different species, e.g., some bacteria of species E and some bacteria of species F. Because there is no counterpart mixture in nature, the closest counterparts to the claimed mixture are the individual components of the mixture, i.e., each naturally occurring species by itself. See, e.g., Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130, 76 USPQ at 281 (comparing claimed mixture of bacterial species to each species as it occurs in nature); Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d at 760, 113 USPQ2d at 1244 (although claimed as a pair, individual primer molecules were compared to corresponding segments of naturally occurring gene sequence); In re Bhagat, 726 Fed. Appx. 772, 778-79 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (comparing claimed mixture of lipids with particular lipid profile to “naturally occurring lipid profiles of walnut oil and olive oil”). See subsection II.C.

When there are multiple counterparts to the nature-based product, the comparison should be made to the closest naturally occurring counterpart. For example, assume that the inventor creates a cloned sheep D by transferring nuclear DNA from a Finn-Dorset sheep into an egg cell (which contains mitochondrial DNA) from a Scottish Blackface sheep. Applicant then claims sheep D. Here, because sheep D was created via combining DNA from two different naturally occurring sheep of different breeds, there is no single closest natural counterpart. The examiner should therefore select the counterpart most closely related to sheep D based on the examiner’s expertise in the particular art. For the example discussed here, the closest counterparts might be naturally occurring Finn-Dorset or Scottish Blackface sheep, as opposed to sheep of a different breed such as Bighorn sheep. Cf. Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1337, 110 USPQ2d at 1671-72 (claimed sheep produced by nuclear transfer into an oocyte and subsequent manipulation of natural embryonic development processes was compared to naturally occurring sheep such as the donor ewe from which the nuclear material was obtained). When the nature-based product is a combination produced from multiple components, the closest counterpart may be the individual nature-based components of the combination. For example, assume that applicant claims an inoculant comprising a mixture of bacteria from different species, e.g., some bacteria of species E and some bacteria of species F. Because there is no counterpart mixture in nature, the closest counterparts to the claimed mixture are the individual components of the mixture, i.e., each naturally occurring species by itself. See, e.g., Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130, 76 USPQ at 281 (comparing claimed mixture of bacterial species to each species as it occurs in nature); Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d at 760, 113 USPQ2d at 1244 (although claimed as a pair, individual primer molecules were compared to corresponding segments of naturally occurring gene sequence); In re Bhagat, 726 Fed. Appx. 772, 778-79 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (comparing claimed mixture of lipids with particular lipid profile to “naturally occurring lipid profiles of walnut oil and olive oil”). See subsection II.C.

When there are multiple counterparts to the nature-based product, the comparison should be made to the closest naturally occurring counterpart. For example, assume that the inventor creates a cloned sheep D by transferring nuclear DNA from a Finn-Dorset sheep into an egg cell (which contains mitochondrial DNA) from a Scottish Blackface sheep. Applicant then claims sheep D. Here, because sheep D was created via combining DNA from two different naturally occurring sheep of different breeds, there is no single closest natural counterpart. The examiner should therefore select the counterpart most closely related to sheep D based on the examiner’s expertise in the particular art. For the example discussed here, the closest counterparts might be naturally occurring Finn-Dorset or Scottish Blackface sheep, as opposed to sheep of a different breed such as Bighorn sheep. Cf. Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1337, 110 USPQ2d at 1671-72 (claimed sheep produced by nuclear transfer into an oocyte and subsequent manipulation of natural embryonic development processes was compared to naturally occurring sheep such as the donor ewe from which the nuclear material was obtained). When the nature-based product is a combination produced from multiple components, the closest counterpart may be the individual nature-based components of the combination. For example, assume that applicant claims an inoculant comprising a mixture of bacteria from different species, e.g., some bacteria of species E and some bacteria of species F. Because there is no counterpart mixture in nature, the closest counterparts to the claimed mixture are the individual components of the mixture, i.e., each naturally occurring species by itself. See, e.g., Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130, 76 USPQ at 281 (comparing claimed mixture of bacterial species to each species as it occurs in nature); Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d at 760, 113 USPQ2d at 1244 (although claimed as a pair, individual primer molecules were compared to corresponding segments of naturally occurring gene sequence); In re Bhagat, 726 Fed. Appx. 772, 778-79 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (comparing claimed mixture of lipids with particular lipid profile to “naturally occurring lipid profiles of walnut oil and olive oil”). See subsection II.C.

When there are multiple counterparts to the nature-based product, the comparison should be made to the closest naturally occurring counterpart. For example, assume that the inventor creates a cloned sheep D by transferring nuclear DNA from a Finn-Dorset sheep into an egg cell (which contains mitochondrial DNA) from a Scottish Blackface sheep. Applicant then claims sheep D. Here, because sheep D was created via combining DNA from two different naturally occurring sheep of different breeds, there is no single closest natural counterpart. The examiner should therefore select the counterpart most closely related to sheep D based on the examiner’s expertise in the particular art. For the example discussed here, the closest counterparts might be naturally occurring Finn-Dorset or Scottish Blackface sheep, as opposed to sheep of a different breed such as Bighorn sheep. Cf. Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1337, 110 USPQ2d at 1671-72 (claimed sheep produced by nuclear transfer into an oocyte and subsequent manipulation of natural embryonic development processes was compared to naturally occurring sheep such as the donor ewe from which the nuclear material was obtained). When the nature-based product is a combination produced from multiple components, the closest counterpart may be the individual nature-based components of the combination. For example, assume that applicant claims an inoculant comprising a mixture of bacteria from different species, e.g., some bacteria of species E and some bacteria of species F. Because there is no counterpart mixture in nature, the closest counterparts to the claimed mixture are the individual components of the mixture, i.e., each naturally occurring species by itself. See, e.g., Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130, 76 USPQ at 281 (comparing claimed mixture of bacterial species to each species as it occurs in nature); Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d at 760, 113 USPQ2d at 1244 (although claimed as a pair, individual primer molecules were compared to corresponding segments of naturally occurring gene sequence); In re Bhagat, 726 Fed. Appx. 772, 778-79 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (comparing claimed mixture of lipids with particular lipid profile to “naturally occurring lipid profiles of walnut oil and olive oil”). See subsection II.C.

When there are multiple counterparts to the nature-based product, the comparison should be made to the closest naturally occurring counterpart. For example, assume that the inventor creates a cloned sheep D by transferring nuclear DNA from a Finn-Dorset sheep into an egg cell (which contains mitochondrial DNA) from a Scottish Blackface sheep. Applicant then claims sheep D. Here, because sheep D was created via combining DNA from two different naturally occurring sheep of different breeds, there is no single closest natural counterpart. The examiner should therefore select the counterpart most closely related to sheep D based on the examiner’s expertise in the particular art. For the example discussed here, the closest counterparts might be naturally occurring Finn-Dorset or Scottish Blackface sheep, as opposed to sheep of a different breed such as Bighorn sheep. Cf. Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1337, 110 USPQ2d at 1671-72 (claimed sheep produced by nuclear transfer into an oocyte and subsequent manipulation of natural embryonic development processes was compared to naturally occurring sheep such as the donor ewe from which the nuclear material was obtained). When the nature-based product is a combination produced from multiple components, the closest counterpart may be the individual nature-based components of the combination. For example, assume that applicant claims an inoculant comprising a mixture of bacteria from different species, e.g., some bacteria of species E and some bacteria of species F. Because there is no counterpart mixture in nature, the closest counterparts to the claimed mixture are the individual components of the mixture, i.e., each naturally occurring species by itself. See, e.g., Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130, 76 USPQ at 281 (comparing claimed mixture of bacterial species to each species as it occurs in nature); Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d at 760, 113 USPQ2d at 1244 (although claimed as a pair, individual primer molecules were compared to corresponding segments of naturally occurring gene sequence); In re Bhagat, 726 Fed. Appx. 772, 778-79 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (comparing claimed mixture of lipids with particular lipid profile to “naturally occurring lipid profiles of walnut oil and olive oil”). See subsection II.C.

In Ambry Genetics, the court identified claimed DNA fragments known as “primers” as products of nature, because they lacked markedly different characteristics. University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp., 774 F.3d 755, 113 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The claimed primers were single-stranded pieces of DNA, each of which corresponded to a naturally occurring double-stranded DNA sequence in or near the BRCA genes. The patentee argued that these primers had markedly different structural characteristics from the natural DNA, because the primers were synthetically created and because “single-stranded DNA cannot be found in the human body”. The court disagreed, concluding that the primers’ structural characteristics were not markedly different than the corresponding strands of DNA in nature, because the primers and their counterparts had the same genetic structure and nucleotide sequence. 774 F.3d at 760, 113 USPQ2d at 1243-44. The patentee also argued that the primers had a different function than when they are part of the DNA strand because when isolated as a primer, a primer can be used as a starting material for a DNA polymerization process. The court disagreed, because this ability to serve as a starting material is innate to DNA itself, and was not created or altered by the patentee:

Examiners should keep in mind that if the nature-based product limitation is naturally occurring, there is no need to perform the markedly different characteristics analysis because the limitation is by definition directed to a naturally occurring product and thus falls under the product of nature exception. However, if the nature-based product limitation is not naturally occurring, for example due to some human intervention, then the markedly different characteristics analysis must be performed to determine whether the claimed product limitation is a product of nature exception.