Practical/Specific Utility: Is there a real use for what you bring to patent office
1.    Throw-away and insubstantial uses don’t count must be “specific and substantial”.
2.    Categories of cases:
a.    Make invention w/o anything in mind, like pinecone discussion, is there any purpose of this?
b.    Invention you made with hope it will turn into something useful but not sure it will work out.
c.    Middle-step cases, not trying to make end product but research tool to help other things move forward. These things too may not be useful to society at end of the day.
3.    Brenner: (C3P271) Two people after same patent. R&R first to file, Manson steps in claiming first to invent. M has to show he identified a use for an invention before R&R. CCPA: There was obviously utility. Usefulness of process is producing desired (“X”). SC reverses
a.    Interference 102(g): This is an interference case, needed to prove who created process and established utility first.
b.    Little disclosure: SC condemns system, frustrated with your vague patents that the argument based upon the virtue of disclosure must be warily evaluated.
? If they let you patent process w/o use for end product, you won’t disclose anything of use.
c.    Pressure for secrecy: Claims pressure for secrecy exaggerated; the inventor has incentive to make invention known so someone will find use.
(A)    Problem: The person who finds the use may try to patent the process. K law protection?
d.    Incentives: Claims that allowing protection of patent w/o use will inhibit others from finding use.
- Stupid, use K law to hire people to find uses, split profits.
e.    Boundaries: Claims until process claim is reduced to sense that we know what outcome does, its hard to delineate the boundaries of the patent.
(A)    Dissent/L: This is absurd, M is seeking patent on a clearly mapped out process not on product.
(B)    Blatantly untrue that patent is hard to write.
f.    Timing: Court doesn’t say this, but maybe they want utility to be a timing device.