Unformatted text preview: unexpected results were sufficient to outweigh evidence of obviousness 28 28 Example 4
s Claim Solid oral dosage form comprising (a) coated famotidine granules (b) Al(OH)3 or Mg(OH)2 granules wherein the coating on the famotidine is impermeable to the Al(OH)3 or Mg(OH)2 29 29 Example 4
s Prior Art Reference disclosed combination of uncoated histamine H2 receptor antagonists (e.g. famotidine) and antacids Reference disclosed coating granulated medicaments to mask taste of active ingredient Reference acknowledged the bitter taste of cimetidine (a famotidine analog) 30 30 Example 4
s Evidence Other modes of tastemasking were preferable due to cost of coated granules 31 31 Example 4
s Conclusion It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply a known tastemasking technique to mask the expected bitter taste of famotidine by coating the famotidine granules with the predictable expectation that the formulation will be more palatable 32 32 McNeilPPC, Inc. v Perrigo Company, 516 F. Supp.2d 238 (S.D. N.Y. July 3, 2007)
s Court’s Rationale The combination of coated famotidine and the antacids provided no more than predictable results, citing KSR Costs alone are not indicative of non obviousness...
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