翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Tennessee State Route 139 ・ Tennessee State Route 14 ・ Tennessee State Route 141 ・ Tennessee State Route 143 ・ Tennessee State Route 144 ・ Tennessee State Route 145 ・ Tennessee State Route 146 ・ Tennessee State Route 148 ・ Tennessee State Route 15 ・ Tennessee State Route 151 ・ Tennessee State Route 153 ・ Tennessee State Route 155 ・ Tennessee Department of Veterans Affairs ・ Tennessee Derby ・ Tennessee Division of Archaeology ・ Tennessee Eastman Co v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) ・ Tennessee Emergency Management Agency ・ Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture ・ Tennessee Equality Project ・ Tennessee Ernie Ford ・ Tennessee Fall Homecoming ・ Tennessee Farmers Cooperative ・ Tennessee Firebird ・ Tennessee Flat Top Box ・ Tennessee Foreign Language Institute ・ Tennessee Gas Pipeline ・ Tennessee General Assembly ・ Tennessee Governor's Academy for Math and Science ・ Tennessee Governor's Mansion ・ Tennessee gubernatorial election, 1998 Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Tennessee Eastman Co v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) ： ウィキペディア英語版 Tennessee Eastman Co v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) ''Tennessee Eastman Co v Canada (Commissioner of Patents)'', () S.C.R. 111, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada authority for the proposition that medical or therapeutic methods are not patentable in Canada. ==Background== Tennessee Eastman sought a patent for a surgical method for bonding a wound together by applying certain glues.〔Specifically, the patent application claimed, in part: "The method for surgical bonding of body tissues which comprises applying to at least one of the tissue surfaces to be bonded an adhesive composition comprising a monomeric ester of a-cyanoacrylic acid ... "〕 The glues themselves were not new. The new discovery was that the glues could be used in place of stitches to close wounds. The Commissioner of Patents refused to grant the patent on the ground that the claimed method was not the kind of discovery which fell within the definition of “invention” in the Patent Act. In particular, it was not an “art” because it was useful only in the process of surgical treatment and produced no result in relation to trade, commerce or industry. Tennessee Eastman appealed to the Exchequer Court. The issue there was whether this use of glue fell within the meaning of new and useful “art” or “process” within the meaning of the Patent Act. The Exchequer Court held that it did not for the reasons given by the Commissioner of Patents. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Tennessee Eastman Co v Canada (Commissioner of Patents)」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.