So, now you're shifting your position regarding Mori, because in 274220 you stated Mori creates an expectation that EPA lowers LDL. What I've stated repeatedly since then is that Mori didn't say that. Rather Mori showed EPA raised LDL.
That's thematic to appeal. The problem with defendants is they didn't prove any of the prior art made Amarin's patents obvious. The trial opinion is plagued with misrepresentations about each study's conclusions miscast as being Amarin's burden to disprove, rather than defendant's to prove.
Guys, I think you all should lay off a bit on breath. This board should allow different voices and opinions.
His point is a bit similar to hdg point: legal obvious is not equal to scientific proving. Seems unfair? Yes, I agree. But this is where sec. con. come to play.
If Singer wants to argue prima facie is nonobvious, then I am a little lost, because PTO ruled prima to be obvious twice, but approved Marine based on sec. con.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
