Bouf,
the argument goes as follows: IF we assume that the panel assigned to Appeal Bench takes the prima facie first approach they still have 2 problems:
(1) The PFO analysis was corrupted by FLAWED technique-this is provable beyond a shadow of any doubt and generics can call up any snake oil charmer they want for any money--NONE will foreswear that the statistical errors in intepreting either Mori or Kurabayashi are kosher. (Of course, Gen's have said in their Brief, and will continue to say nothing matters, its all obvious, always was, and cover everything up with legal double speak every which way to Sunday...) Now, if there is a REAL doubt about the analysis technique, then the Appeals bench has to reconsider ALL of it (the prima facie obviousness evidence) and not defer judgement because Du used flawed TECHNIQUE...they cannot just defer to her wisdom in this..or risk higher court correction on procedural basis.
(2) Assuming the Appeals panel is PFO first orientated, they still have another problem: Du "weighed" the secondary objective indicia and admited to it shamelessly in the bench order as though it were some autonomous brilliance of analysis...Now, the Appeals bench cannot just accept Du's COMBINED primary and secondary objective evidence summation de facto as correct, when the SECONDARY indicia evaluation has been technically botched by any prior legal precedent standard!
Of course, what do I know?
I am not a Law Lord
HK
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
