From: David Koepsell [e-mail address redacted] 
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 10:08 AM
To: myriad-mayo_2014
Subject: comments on exceptions to patent eligibility.

In the attached article, I outline a way to distinguish between laws and products
 of nature and everything else. The key is to determine if the object required 
both human intention and human design. If so, then it is not a product of 
nature or a natural phenomenon. 

Laws of nature and natural phenomena exist regardless of humans, and are not 
the products of our intention or design. 

Synthesized natural products are not the product of our design (e.g. BRCA1 
and 2 genes were not designed by us) even when tokens (instances) of these 
are created through our intention. I believe that synthesized natural products 
ought not to be patent eligible because they lack the element of human design 
and are thus not inventive, though the processes by which we synthesize them 
may be inventive. 

Finally, true artifacts are the products of both our design and intention and are 
clearly patent eligible. 

I hope you read the attached article for a more thorough analysis of this 
interpretation of patent eligibility criteria.

David Koepsell, J.D./PhD

http://davidkoepsell.com


[Attachment contains a copyright notice for Springer Science+Business.  
At the time of publication of this comment it was not yet available online;
 it is available for public inspection]