Law review article criticizes FTCR and PubPat on stem cells

DILLON BEARDSLEY in A Two-Front Assault on the Stem Cell Patents, 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 501 (2007) writes:

The United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") issued United
States Patent Nos. 5,843,780 ("the '708 patent"); 6,200,806 ("the '806
patent"); and 7,029,913 ("the '913 patent") -- all relating to embryonic stem ("ES")
cells -- to researcher Dr. James A. Thomson who in turn assigned the patents to
the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation ("WARF").

(...)

When compared, the WARF patents do not describe inventions obvious
or anticipated in light of the prior art submitted by FTCR and PUBPAT. The
prior art lacks any teaching for the creation HESCs; only teaches isolation
of mouse or pig ES cells; and with a few keystrokes, suggests application of
this groundbreaking, complex methodology in humans.

(...)

In the end, the innovation behind the WARF stem cell patents must be [p. 524] recognized, as it was at the time of discovery.

IPBiz notes that the law review article did NOT cite to previous discussion published on IPBiz. The last visits of Beardsley to the internet seem to have been on April 19, 2007 (e.g., footnote 40). By this time, IPBiz had posted much commentary on the re-exam, including

First Office Action rejects claims of WARF's patents , posted on April 2, 2007

More on the re-exam of the Thomson / WARF patents , posted on April 4, 2007

Rejection of ALL claims in final OA occurs in about 12% of re-exams , posted on April 6, 2007