Mossinghoff Gerald J
Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, USA.
Adv Genet. 2003;50:13-21; discussion 507-10. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2660(03)50002-5.
In my remarks here, I have necessarily limited myself to general principles of patent law that are applicable to a consideration of gene-related inventions. Were I still Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, I would not let electrical engineers anywhere near the examination of applications for patents for gene-related inventions, just as I would not let the USPTO's many Ph.D.s in microbiology or genetics near the examination of complex applications on computer architecture or programming. The same should hold true for attorneys who prosecute patent applications. That is why the U.S. patent system works so well. There can be no discrimination in the system by the field of technology--a principle enshrined in Article 27 of the World Trade Organization's Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property. But we quite properly depend upon specialists to apply across-the-board general principles to very specialized technological fields of endeavor. This works very well in a system in which in the U.S., "everything under the sun made by humans" is patentable.
在我这里的发言中,我必然将自己局限于专利法的一般原则,这些原则适用于对基因相关发明的考量。要是我仍然是专利商标局局长,我不会让电气工程师参与基因相关发明的专利申请审查,就如同我不会让美国专利商标局众多的微生物学或遗传学博士参与计算机架构或编程复杂申请的审查一样。对于处理专利申请的律师而言也是如此。这就是美国专利制度运作良好的原因。该制度在技术领域不存在歧视——这一原则体现在世界贸易组织《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》第27条中。但我们恰当地依赖专家将全面的一般原则应用于非常专业的技术领域。在美国这样一个“人类制造的阳光下的一切”都可获得专利的制度中,这运作得非常好。