Vperrigocompany516 fsupp2d238 sdnyjuly32007 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: 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

Ask a homework question - tutors are online