Bioethanol, biodiesel, and biogasoline from CO2 only

[chrismb]

Liquid hydrocarbons will always have a place ~somewhere~. We might not be using them for transportation, but they'll be useful somehow. Its nice to know we can create them fairly easily.

??

We don't know anything yet. All 'claims'.

As I mentioned above, if someone wanted to make fuel for 'real' then the issues are the land occupation.

Trees are pretty efficient at capturing what solar energy they can already into biomass, providing they are coppiced and managed effectively. It can be reduced to liquid fuel by industrial processes.

Bio processes are slow and low in specific energy. If 25th century person wishes to make liquid fuel on a commerical scale, it [maybe we will have more than just 'men and women' by then !] will dissociate water with the heat of a nuclear process. If we are not doing that, then we will have no need for liquid fuels anyway because it would mean techno-society had failed and we'd be back to pure agrarian societies.

[chrismb]

Had a quick look at the patents. Seem straightforward enough, all strength to them - they've been working at it for a while after all.

They requested accelerated examination (due to 'green' nature) and this went through from filing to grant within 6 months. (Rossi could do the same !).

I don't understand the difference in their claims, though. The examiner did question the 'dual patenting' but let them all through in the end, first claims being:

7,794,969
1. A method for producing hydrocarbons, comprising: (i) culturing an engineered cyanobacterium in a culture medium, wherein said engineered cyanobacterium comprises a recombinant acyl ACP reductase (AAR) enzyme and a recombinant alkanal decarboxylative monooxygenase (ADM) enzyme; and (ii) exposing said engineered cyanobacterium to light and carbon dioxide, wherein said exposure results in the conversion of said carbon dioxide by said engineered cynanobacterium into n-alkanes, wherein at least one of said n-alkanes is selected from the group consisting of n-tridecane, n-tetradecane, n-pentadecane, n-hexadecane, and n-heptadecane, and wherein the amount of said n-alkanes produced is between 0.1% and 5% dry cell weight and at least two times the amount produced by an otherwise identical cyanobacterium, cultured under identical conditions, but lacking said recombinant AAR and ADM enzymes.

7,919,303
An engineered cyanobacterium, wherein said engineered cyanobacterium comprises a recombinant acyl-ACP reductase enzyme and a recombinant alkanal decarboxylative monooxygenase enzyme; and wherein said cyanobacterium, when cultured in the presence of light and carbon dioxide, produces n-alkanes, wherein at least one of said n-alkanes is selected from the group consisting of n-tridecane, n-tetradecane, n-pentadecane, n-hexadecane, and n-heptadecane, and wherein the amount of said n-alkanes produced is between 0.1% and 5% dry cell weight and at least two times the amount produced by an otherwise identical cyanobacterium, cultured under identical conditions, but lacking said recombinant acyl-ACP reductase and alkanal decarboxylative monooxygenase enzymes.

7,955,820
1. A method for producing hydrocarbons, comprising: (i) culturing an engineered cyanobacterium in a culture medium, wherein said engineered cyanobacterium comprises a recombinant acyl-ACP reductase enzyme and a recombinant alkanal decarboxylative monooxygenase enzyme, wherein at least one of said recombinant enzymes is heterologous with respect to said engineered cyanobacterium; and (ii) exposing said engineered cyanobacterium to light and carbon dioxide, wherein said exposure results in the conversion of said carbon dioxide by said engineered cynanobacterium into n-alkanes, wherein the predominant n-alkane is n-pentadecane.
REFERENCE TO A SEQUENCE LISTING
This application contains a computer-readable Sequence Listing which has been submitted via EFS-Web and is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety. Said ASCII copy, created on Jul. 30, 2010, is named "17078_US_Sequence Listing.txt", lists 128 sequences, and is 332 kb in size.

Maybe they thought twice about the part of the claim "and at least two times the amount produced by an otherwise identical cyanobacterium" which'd mean if you ran the method and only produced 1.99 times the amount produced by an otherwise identical cyanobacterium then you'd not infringe it. It would be a tangle of legal cases to determine what the amount produced by an otherwise identical cyanobacterium actually was. Bad feature of a claim. I am not keen to see 'wide, fishing' type claims that try to net everything, but there is no need to limit your claim like this!

Further, the first claim alone does not limit someone else manufacturing the bacterium, then giving it to another party to generate n-alkenes, because the first claim requires cultivation of the bacterium. Two parties working in complement could get around the first claim.

That's the problem with accelerating the claim. There is a teeny 'wriggle room' to make yourself clear and amend the specification before it is actually examined and granted, which they appears to have lost by accelerating the first application.

They petitioned for an accelerated examination with the application. It is a choice I guess they came to regret at their leisure and then split the patent into a 'product' and a 'method' claim. Fortunately, they seem to have gotten away with it, but the latter two would, I think, now, be challengable by another party on the ground that this is double-patenting.

In the US, an accelerated claim means that 37 CFR 1.104 examination comes up quick. There is opportunity under 37 CFR 1.121 and 1.125 to make amendments before first office action. So don't request acceleration of your patent application (under s 1.102) too quick!! Sleep on it! No action is often the best course of action!

I think they only needed to patent the second claim.

[bantab]

Seem very likely that a bacteria that sequesters large portions of the solar energy it collects in a chemical fuel it can't use is at a disadvantage in the wild.

Depends upon how big the supply of what it can use is. The CO2 being more important than the light obviously. And, it is not that it can't use its own waste, it is that other organisms can't. It is a cycle of life thing.

Basically, it would be stealing supply from the cycle of life and converting it to something that nothing can use.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/ ... lf-waters/

But the fundamental flaw in this argument is the assumption that there is an evolutionarily-advantageous reason for increased alkane production. Considering they haven't increased the efficiency of the enzyme in question, I can't imagine that is the case.

[bennmann]

Seem very likely that a bacteria that sequesters large portions of the solar energy it collects in a chemical fuel it can't use is at a disadvantage in the wild.

Depends upon how big the supply of what it can use is. The CO2 being more important than the light obviously. And, it is not that it can't use its own waste, it is that other organisms can't. It is a cycle of life thing.

Basically, it would be stealing supply from the cycle of life and converting it to something that nothing can use.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/ ... lf-waters/

But the fundamental flaw in this argument is the assumption that there is an evolutionarily-advantageous reason for increased alkane production. Considering they haven't increased the efficiency of the enzyme in question, I can't imagine that is the case.

Put this bacteria in a tank with the oil producing bacteria and let them duke it out. Take bets on the winner. For humor.

[KitemanSA]

Put this bacteria in a tank with the oil producing bacteria and let them duke it out. Take bets on the winner. For humor.

Why would they duke it out? Surely they will form a symbiosis and there you'll get your classic solar powered sludge monster. ARRGG.