I was hoping you would get a rebuttal to your point (below) to put me at ease
"To your point 2 I am still not at ease. It was turned down but when the patent examiner overcame it they clearly wrote that they only overcame it bc of ApO-B. I went back and read it all. Therefore I don’t know that the point singer makes is a valid point, but I defer to the lawyers or someone more knowledgeable than me. It seems if they turned it down and later accepted it in full it would have more weight but bc they still found it obvious to reduce TG and not raise LDL it’s tough (for me) to get past that point."
Same here, I am puzzled why Singer arguing about this past point - prima facie obviousness. Don’t know if this is his tactic or not. The board legal intelligence seems fully comfortable with it though.
That's one reason I was puzzled that Singer focused primarily on LDL-C, didn't talk about Apo-b much, if at all. Perhaps it's because Du's decision focused on LDL-C?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
