Biotech Values

[iwfal]

I would be interested in any articulation of the significance of the judges focus as applied to the claims and facts we have

The Judge is not seeking a technical explanation from MNTA; rather, the Judge is making MNTA do the grunt work of finding legal precedents for MNTA’s interpretation of the patent claims at issue. That’s why the Judge’s Order in #msg-68232191 directs MNTA to produce a memorandum of law.

I would suggest this is not really answering Zip's question - kind like saying that a mathematical proof should have some math in it. (yes, I wrote my post technically - but take it as obvious that any legal brief will have to cite some legal precedent). I will say that zip is probably looking for something more like (and I will try to write it more legally):

Is this towards enablement - because the judge doesn't believe 'determine' without a description beyond 'separation method' is adequate?

Is this towards obviousness - because the judge doesn't understand the difference between this and one of the earlier patents?

? I honestly do not think we can understand the point of the order without a little more data than we have.