Biotech Values

[investorgold2002]

"or considered it an insignificant change"

sorry buddy. this is again inequitable conduct as far as I am concerned. If all studies(including safety conclusions) were pointed out to patent examiner including phase 3 human studies which presumably used higher m.w as claimed in the 1974 patent , then patent examiner may have concluded that the finding on a rat study maybe either insignificant or the claim cannot be reasonably extended to humans . By not disclosing prior art that was absolutely MATERIAL to the patentability of this claim, TEVA committed fraud or inequitable conduct and got something patented. the very fact that the same inventors that authored this patent also published those phase 3 human studies that were not appropriately disclosed or prosecuted would be clear and convincing evidence of intent to deceive...it cannot just be negligence or gross negligence

so sorry buddy zero-0% still on obviousness. I still contend the finding is every bit novel (if true). we know it is not true. Hence patent was issued based on fraud or inequitable conduct.