> it was about novelty - the natural DNA in your cells was, in the judge's view Except that the judge said that it wasn't. The judge said that they can't pate

> it was about novelty - the natural DNA in your cells was, in the judge's view Except that the judge said that it wasn't. The judge said that they can't patent discovering a gene - they can only patent doing something new with or to said gene. That's why the applicants wrote the claim the way that they did - they claimed suppression of said gene to accomplish something. The problem with that claim is that they didn't invent a means of suppression. They assumed one, hence they didn't actually have an invention, which is what the judge actually wrote.