[Ip-health] According to PATNEWS: Two idiotic Craig Venter patent applications on synthetic biology

[James Love]

-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: patnews@ns1.patenting-art.com
Subject: PATNEWS: Two idiotic Craig Venter patent applications on
synthetic biology
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:27:04 -0500

!20071214  Two idiotic Craig Venter patent applications on synthetic biology

...


This week's issue of New Scientist (15 December, page 4) has a brief news
item on how activist group the ETC Group is raising alarms on two new
published applications from Craig Venter and his colleagues.  Yeah, water
and sewer treatment alarms, because these patents are crap. Venter must
be desperate for attention if he wasting his company's money filing this
nonsense.  The applications are:

    2007/269862  Installation of genomes or partial genomes into cells or
                     cell-like systems
    2007/264688  Synthetic genomes

Just the titles alone indicate crap to prior art searchers, anyone in cell
biology, and all children older than 5. Once again, I ask, do law firms
have an obligation to humanity to whack their clients in the head when
they desire to file such crap?

First problem.  No IDS was submitted for either patent application, and
the backgrounds cite no prior art of any sort.  Does Venter really think
he invented gene injection and artificial gene assemblies?  Seriously?
What was he smoking?

Let's look at the first application:

    2007/269862  Installation of genomes or partial genomes into cells or
                     cell-like systems
    Filed December 2006 from December 2005 provisional

    Claim 1:
    A method for making a synthetic cell, the method comprising: obtaining
    a genome that is not within a cell; and introducing the genome into
    a cell or cell-like system.

    Claim 3: the genome is from a different species
    Claim 4: the genome is nakkid DNA
    Claim 5: the genome is a natural genome
    Claim 6: the genome is a manmade genome
    Claim 10: the genome is one or more chromosome (fragments)

Seriously, what was Venter smoking when he concluded this was an invention?
There is tons of prior art on this subject.  For example, consider:

    U.S. Patent 6,936,469
    Methods of delivering nucleic acid molecules into cells and assessment
    Chromos Molecular Systems (Canadian Dr. Frankensteins to you all)
    Issued August 2005
    Abstract: Methods for delivering nucleic acid molecules into cells
    and methods for measuring nucleic acid delivery into cells and the
    expression of the nucleic acids are provided.  The methods are
    designed for introduction of large nucleic acid molecules, including
    artificial chromosomes, into cells, and are practiced in vitro and
    in vivo.

Wkat kind of contempt for the patent system does Venter have to file this
piece of crap without doing even the simplest of searches to find such
prior art?  Hey Craig, hire me to do some searching for you.  I will even
take stock options.  And the '469 patent cites tons of prior art, much of
which Venter could have cited.  If he didn't hold the patent system in such
contempt he would have done some searching.


         *************** COMMERCIAL INTERRUPTION *****************
         Need a patent busted?  Tired of whining about bad patents
         and want to help the system by filing a good application?
         Contact us now at bustpatents.com!!!!!! But wait, there's
         more!  Order now and get a free Ginzu knife.
         *************** COMMERCIAL INTERRUPTION *****************


Well, maybe Venter is batting .500, so let's see what his other patent
is claiming:

    U.S. Patent Application 2007/264688
    Synthetic Genomes
    Filed December 2006 from December 2005 provisional

    Claim 1:  A method for constructing a synthetic genome comprising:

    assembling nucleic acid cassettes that comprise portions of the
    synthetic genome, wherein at least one of the nucleic acid cassettes
    is constructed from nucleic acid components that have been chemically
    synthesized, or from copies of chemically synthesized nucleic acid
    components.

Synthetic genome comprised of DNA cassettes.  Sounds like ...... hmmmmm
..... an artificial chromosome to me.  Wow, what a brilliant breakthrough.
Yes, a brilliant breakthrough.  IN FREAKIN 1990:

    U.S. Patent 6,025,155
    Artificial chromosomes, uses thereof and methods for preparing
        artificial chromosomes
    Chromos Molecular Systems (Canadian Dr. Frankenstein's to you all)
    Filed August 1996 from May 1990 application

    Claim 1: A method of producing a product that is produced upon
    expression of a metabolic pathway, comprising culturing a cell
    comprising an artificial chromosome under conditions whereby
    the pathway is expressed to produce the product, wherein:

    the artificial chromosome is selected from the group consisting of
    a satellite artificial chromosome and a minichromosome;

    the artificial chromosome comprises multiple copies of a heterologous
    gene or plurality of heterologous genes; and

    the heterologous genes encode proteins that comprise the metabolic
    pathway.

Again, how did Venter miss this patent, which itself in 1990 cites tons of
prior art for creating small constructs of DNA sequences to inject into
cells?  And Venter says he doesn't know about Chromos Molecular Systems,
he is either lying or too incompetent to be heading this research effort.
Now some of the claims in the '688 application deal with Venter's
minimal genome bacteria, so why not start the claims there, instead of
these overly broad generalized claims that will never, ever issue?

Either way, it is a contempt of the patent system to submit these two
patent applications without citing any of the tons of relevant prior art.
Heck, in 2004, Humana Press published a nice little area review book
titled: "Mammalian Artificial Chromosomes: Methods and Protocols".  I
will be glad to lend Craig my copy.

And law firms, if they actually know enough about the technology, should
insist that their clients do searches for applications as broad as this.

Hey Craig, hire me next time to do some searching for you.

Greg Aharonian
Internet Patent News Service