Replies to post #56351 on DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[gunnabeoneday]

frog, concerning our AIM patent thread:


32. The method of claim 22, wherein determination of BGA can be used to infer responsiveness of the individual to a drug.

you stated: <<Notice that it does NOT say whether or not the AIM's themselves can be used to determine 'responsiveness', but only if such responsiveness can be infered by BGA.>>

i would suggest that there is a clear path linking determination of BGA to the patented AIMs.




now, let's look at claim 30:

30. The method of claim 22, wherein the trait comprises biogeo graphical ancestry (BGA).

you stated: <<Moving down to claim 30 we get a subclaim to 22 in which the 'trait' is Bio Geographical Ancestry (BGA)>>

i would note a small but critical mischaracterization of claim 30 that you made. you stated that the trait 'IS' bga, but the actual claim states the trait 'COMPRISES' bga. clearly this makes a huge difference. this means the trait 'includes' bga content (ie: AIMs).


based on COMPRISED, i believe your 'BGA filter' interpretation DOES NOT APPLY and drug discovery utilizing AIMs for ancestry/ethnic stratification would indeed be patent protected for DNAG.

imo, this utility is clearly 'claimed' in the patent and any drug discovery using any of these AIMs and disclosing data with ancestry/ethnic tendencies would be open to legal ramifications from DNAG if they had not licensed the right to use these AIMs.


i look forward to your continuing contributions to this thread.


good evening.