This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: ost therapeutically active in the S configuration “Parent” patent disclosing structurally similar compounds and teaching that when diastereomeric products result from the synthetic procedures, the diasteriomeric products can be separated by conventional chromatographic or fractional crystallization methods 58 58 Example 9
s Evidence Synthesis of a mixture of the 5(S) stereoisomer with the 4(S)(R) stereoisomer of ramipril by competitor pharmaceutical company (which qualified as prior art under 102(g)) 59 59 Example 9
s Conclusion It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to produce and isolate the 5(S) stereoisomer of ramipril with a reasonable expectation of success 60 60 Aventis v. Lupin, 499 F.3d 1293, 84 USPQ2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
s Court’s Analysis District Court erred in requiring clear and convincing showing of motivation, citing KSR Obviousness flowed from recognition of the properties of similar prior art compounds combined with recognition of the presence of the claimed isomer in the prior art mixture 61 61 Example 10
s Claim Substantially pure (S) enantiomer of escitalopram oxalate 62 62 Example 10
s Prior Art Reference taught racemate of escitalopram as a SSRI and predicted enhanced potency of the (R) enantiomer but did not disclose the process of separation of the racemate 63 63 Example 10 Evidence Chiral HPLC was a relatively new and unpredictable technique at the time of the invention Author of prior art reference had attempted to use chiral HPLC to separate racemate of escitalopram but failed Failure by inventor to resolve escitalopram r...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 04/05/2010 for the course LAW LAW6571 taught by Professor Abbott during the Spring '10 term at Florida State College.
- Spring '10