Morphological classification of bovine ovarian follicles

Follicle classification is an important aid to the understanding of follicular development and atresia. Some bovine primordial follicles have the classical primordial shape, but ellipsoidal shaped follicles with some cuboidal granulosa cells at the poles are far more common. Preantral follicles have one of two basal lamina phenotypes, either a single aligned layer or one with additional layers. In antral follicles <5 mm diameter, half of the healthy follicles have columnar shaped basal granulosa cells and additional layers of basal lamina, which appear as loops in cross section (‘loopy’). The remainder have aligned single-layered follicular basal laminas with rounded basal cells, and contain better quality oocytes than the loopy/columnar follicles. In sizes >5 mm, only aligned/rounded phenotypes are present. Dominant and subordinate follicles can be identified by ultrasound and/or histological examination of pairs of ovaries. Atretic follicles <5 mm are either basal atretic or antral atretic, named on the basis of the location in the membrana granulosa where cells die first. Basal atretic follicles have considerable biological differences to antral atretic follicles. In follicles >5 mm, only antral atresia is observed. The concentrations of follicular fluid steroid hormones can be used to classify atresia and distinguish some of the different types of atresia; however, this method is unlikely to identify follicles early in atresia, and hence misclassify them as healthy. Other biochemical and histological methods can be used, but since cell death is a part of normal homoeostatis, deciding when a follicle has entered atresia remains somewhat subjective.

Is there a physicality requirement at Common Law? : a survey of the Pre-NRDC cases discussing ‘Manufacture’

One of the fundamental issues that remains unresolved in patent law today, both in Australia and in other jurisdictions, is whether an invention must produce a physical effect or cause a physical transformation of matter to be patentable, or whether it is sufficient that an invention involves a specific practical application of an idea or principle to achieve a useful result. In short, the question is whether Australian patent law contains a physicality requirement. Despite being recently considered by the Federal Court, this is arguably an issue that has yet to be satisfactorily resolved in Australia. In its 2006 decision in Grant v Commissioner of Patents, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia found that the patentable subject matter standard is rooted in the physical, when it held that an invention must involve a physical effect or transformation to be patent eligible. That decision, however, has been the subject of scrutiny in the academic literature. This article seeks to add to the existing literature written in response to the Grant decision by examining in detail the key common law cases decided prior to the High Court’s watershed decision in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents, which is the undisputed authoritative statement of principle in regards to the patentable subject matter standard in Australia. This article, in conjunction with others written by the author, questions the Federal Court’s assertion in Grant that the physicality requirement it established is consistent with existing law.