tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post2456251070575585307..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: PTAB reverses obviousness of treating muscle-based disorders with a compound targeted at sensory neuronsKaren G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-32193235651785767342016-01-10T16:18:09.277-05:002016-01-10T16:18:09.277-05:00Dr. Yarus, thanks for your input.
You're ref...Dr. Yarus, thanks for your input. <br /><br />You're referring to "Proposed Modification Cannot Render the Prior Art Unsatisfactory for Intended Purpose" and "Cannot Change the Principle of Operation of a Reference." <br /><br />Yes, it does seem one or both of these arguments might apply to the fact pattern in Ex parte Brin. And I think these more specific arguments are in fact more common than the higher-level (more generic) argument made by the Applicant here. <br /><br />The best approach ks probably to pick the most specific argument that fits your facts. But in the end, legal arguments based on technical differences are a good approach to obviousness, regardless of how you frame them. <br />Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-15055322288592518592016-01-10T05:35:02.448-05:002016-01-10T05:35:02.448-05:00Interesting that MPEP 2143.01V and 2143.01VI were ...Interesting that MPEP 2143.01V and 2143.01VI were not raised. Either, or both, seem relevant to the analysis.Dr. Sinai Yarushttp://ipattitude.comnoreply@blogger.com