Alphapharmptyltd492f3d135083 uspq2d1169fedcir2007 s

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: e of ethyl substitution in the 6­position instead of the 5­ position References discussing the conventional practices of homologation and ring­ walking 23 23 Example 3 s Prior Art Review article of 101 TZD compounds, which specifically singles out “Compound 42” as having negative side effects of increasing body weight and percentage brown fat 24 24 Example 3 s Evidence Compound 42 produced significant toxicity to the liver and heart as well as a decrease in the number of erythrocytes, a sign of potential toxicity to bone marrow Claimed compound showed no statistically significant toxicity 25 25 Example 3 s Conclusion The claimed compound would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made due to evidence of teaching away and unexpected properties 26 26 Takeda Chemical Industries v. Alphapharm Pty, Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350, 83 USPQ2d 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2007) s Court’s Analysis No “finite number of identifiable, predictable solutions” Prior art provided “broad selection of compounds” Closest prior art compound exhibited negative properties 27 27 Highlights and Guidance s Evidence is critical to the determination of obviousness Example 1 ­ Applicants’ statements in specification were consistent with the prior art and inconsistent with expert testimony Example 2 – Evidence of unexpected results may be insufficient to overcome a conclusion of obviousness Example 3 ­ Evidence of “teaching away” combined with...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online