That might be fair if he were less pompously dismissive of the rest of the board discussion.
I hope the real issue with burden of proof has been made plain enough, now that you're saying to lay off him.
The Judge doesn't have prerogative to misrepresent expert testimony. And it's not the best way to adjudicate a patent's obviousness, hence objective indicia.
Breath claims we need to accord Judge Du's errors of fact with deference to anything less than clearly erroneous, but appeal is postured on questions of law. I'm baffled why Breath can't accept that. And no such deference was shown by Judge Du to USPTO decisions, or FDA contemporaneous understanding of trig drugs and EPA in hypertrig patients.
We need to take Mori with other prior art, whatever that means (no elaboration provided).
...I'm all for a variety of perspective, and I wish Breath provided that. Maybe he'll read the studies, opinions, briefs and other resources provided by other posters, one of my favorite benefits of joining this board.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
