Taq data concealed?(was: Re-PCR not allowed)

Bill Alexander alexanderw at cber.cber.fda.gov
Fri Aug 16 16:05:13 EST 1996


In Article <1996Aug15.204953.5533 at alw.nih.gov>, bernard at elsie.nci.nih.gov
(Bernard Murray) wrote:
>In article <n1372023783.10367 at msmtp.idde.saci.org>, 
>brett_beitzel at MSMTP.FS.SACI.ORG says...
>>
>>I got a copy of the patent...
>>Basically, it covers any amplification of nucleic acids
>>using a nucleic acid primer in which the product of one reaction is used as
>>template in a subsequent reaction.
>
>But surely there's evidence of prior art!  

Yes, but sometimes a "longfelt need in the art" can overcome prior art. 
Before PCR was "disclosed" (partially?) by Cetus there was no easy way to
amplify a fragment without cloning it.

>Don't all cells do this during DNA replication?

This is not relevant in a patent application.  Cells do plenty of things
that would be patentable if you could do it in a tube :-)  

>        As far as alternative names are concerned, the reaction is not
>a true "chain reaction" and I think that some groups were pushing for
>"EAD" (Enzymic Amplification of DNA).  I guess this is too late now
>and PCR (?Patent a Common Resource) is what it will stay.
>                Bernard
>
>Bernard Murray, Ph.D.
>bernard at elsie.nci.nih.gov  (National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda MD, USA)
>
Check out:
http://www.promega.com/taqlegal/rvp.htm
(sorry if this has been posted already)
It seems that Cetus may not have disclose the "best mode" in one of their
PCR/taq patents (there are at least 5 patents).  This is one of the worst
things you could do when dealing with the US PTO.  

Just to reply to another part of this thread; there are isothermal methods
of nucleic acid amplification.

Regards, Bill Alexander
alexanderw at cber.cber.fda.gov



More information about the Methods mailing list