PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board Updated Daily.

Search This Blog

Loading...

Monday, August 4, 2014

sanofi-aventis, pozen

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2844 Ex Parte LEE et al 12837805 - (D) KAISER 103 H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC CHEN, JIANZI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte PATEL et al 11834315 - (D) McCOLLUM 102 102 PATENTS ON DEMAND, P.A. IBM-RSW SONG, DAEHO D

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte OCONNOR et al 11903362 - (D) KRATZ 103 WIGGIN AND DANA LLP SERGENT, RABON A

1765 Ex Parte OCONNOR et al 12211217 - (D) KRATZ 112(2)/103 103/obviuosness-type double patenting WIGGIN AND DANA LLP SERGENT, RABON A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Cohen et al 12364226 - (D) KAISER 102/103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED BEHM, HARRY RAYMOND

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Lake et al 11005529 - (D) BAHR 103 101 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG HUSSAIN, FARRUKH

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Gee 10602404 - (D) JENKS 112(2)/103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC WARE, DEBORAH K

With respect to the obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), Appellant contends that the “obvious to try” rationale is not applicable in cases that do not present a finite and selectively small number of options to choose from citing Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Glenmark Pharmaceutical, 748 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Req. Reh’g 4.) Specifically, Appellant argues that in Sanofi “the Court found the claim for a combination of a known ACE inhibitor with a known calcium antagonist to be non-obvious” (Req. Reh’g 4). In Sanofi-Aventis, our reviewing Court has held that the “obvious to try” rationale does not apply when a combination of known components “was found to have longer-lasting efficacy than either component separately” See Sanofi-Aventis 748 F.3d at 1361, citing Pozen Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 696 F.3d 1151, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In Sanofi-Aventis the combination of known products into a single unit produced longer lasting hypertension treatment which was unexpected “because of the widespread belief [by those of skill in the art] that double-ring inhibitors would not fit the pocket structure of the ACE.” See Sanofi-Aventis at 1361. The present Specification, however, provides insufficient evidence in the form of data to establish any unexpected result with the mixture of coffee grounds and honey.

No comments :