extract the target genes along lines defined by nature so as to preserve the structure and function that the gene possessed in its natural environment. In such a case, t 620 (1939) (same, for purified vitamin C); In re Marden, 18 CCPA 1057, 47 F.2d 958, 959 (1931) (same, for purified vanadium); Gen. Elec. Co. v. DeForest Radio Co., 28 F.2d 641, 643 (3d Cir.1928) (same, for purified tungsten). On the other hand, the purified natural substance is patentable if the “purification” results in a product with such distinct characteristics that it becomes “for every practical purpose a new thing commercially and therapeutically.” Parke-Davis & Co. v. H.K Mulford Co., 189 F. 95, 103 (C.C.S.D.N.Y.1911); see also Merck & Co. v. Olin Mathieson Chem. Corp., 253 F.2d 156, 161-64 (4th Cir.1958) (<HOLDING>). In sum, the test employed by the Supreme
holding that even though the appeal was not moot because effective relief was possible it was inequitable to require that the debtors counsel disgorge fees and costs awarded by the bankruptcy court holding that although the defendant in that case was convicted after the effective date of the new statute  1137118 he nevertheless was required to register as a sex offender because  113716 was in effect at the time he was charged holding that the defendant was denied due process because the procedural rule was not followed in any respect by the trial court holding that a purified composition of vitamin b12 was patentable because the purification process resulted in a product that was therapeutically effective whereas the natural form was not holding that an appeal was not equitably moot because the person who was issued the money was a party and was aware when the payment was made that the award would be appealed