Recently, reviewers of patent applications decided against granting a patent to a university for a genetically engineered mouse developed for laboratory use in studying cancer.
Conclusion
You can't patent this genetically engineered mouse.
Evidence
It's a new animal variety, and the rules governing the granting of patents specifically disallow patents for new animal varieties.
Evaluate
GIVEN THAT the mouse is a new animal variety and you can't get a patent for new animal varieties,
HOW CAN WE ARGUE THAT they should be granted a patent for this mouse?
Feels tough to argue with the logic. We'd have to argue with the premises, in a sense. The argument centers on whether or not the genetically engineered mouse falls under the category of "new animal varieties," which the rules disallow from receiving patents.
Maybe we could show that the genetically engineered mouse does not really qualify as "new animal variety" in the relevant sense intended by that rule, or that the rule is being misapplied or misunderstood by the reviewers.
Goal
Let's find an answer that suggests the reviewers incorrectly are applying that patent rule when deciding against the patent request for the mouse. We need a way to argue that the mouse patent should be allowed.