extraction of a product in a manner that retains the character and function of the product as found in nature does not result in the creation of a human invention. That principle was captured by the Supreme Court’s statement in Chakrabarty that the invention in that case was not to “a hitherto unknown natural phenomenon, but to a nonnaturally occurring manufacture or composition of matter ‘having a distinctive name, character [and] use.’ ” 447 U.S. at 309-10, 100 S.Ct. 2204. Cases involving the “purification” of a natural substance employ similar analysis. Our predecessor court recognized that merely purifying a naturally occurring substance does not render the substance patentable unless it results in a marked change in functionality. In re Merz, 25 CCPA 1314, 97 F.2d 599, 601 (1938) (<HOLDING>); see also In re King, 27 CCPA 754, 107 F.2d
holding that there was no right to a patent on a purer version of ultramarine but recognizing that if a claimed article is of such purity that it differs not only in degree but in kind it may be patentable holding that it may not holding in a patent infringement case that plaintiff lacked standing where it held a conditional right to license a patent and enforce license agreements but did not have the right to transfer the patent holding that in context of patent claim at issue if means only if holding that it is not