InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 20
Posts 959
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 07/08/2013

Re: gempicker post# 82580

Wednesday, 11/26/2014 11:40:09 AM

Wednesday, November 26, 2014 11:40:09 AM

Post# of 91007
Whoooaa....before you start talking patent infringements you need to have the patents approved. To do that they have to prove Novelty and Inventiveness. Simply re-wording the existing verbiage will not change the core novelty of the process. The EPO is not questioning the outcome from the use of stem cells only the novelty and inventiveness which is the key here.

They state repeatedly that many of the claims can be performed by the "skilled man" which means they are not inventive and not a basis for patent approval. How do you propose they re-word the process? It doesn't matter how they re-word it hence my earlier comment that they will need to re-invent the process which I doubt they can do. The process is what it is and appears to be unpatentable in the eyes of the EPO.

One would think anyone would use a flow cytometer when one wants to know cell yield. It's not an uncommon device used at all and not the source of any new revelations. How many different flow cytometer's do you think exist in the world today?

Cell yield sounds great but no one knows what an optimum cell yield happens to be. And what happens when someone boasts the highest cell yield yet someone else can achieve better more consistent results with a lower yield? More is not always better.

Maybe SVFC will issue the EPO a convertible note to help push this through. I bet Frank could help with that.

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.