InvestorsHub Logo

iwishiknew

10/01/20 4:14 AM

#302350 RE: eightisenough #302348

8nuf
-Du relied on Mori-that's why MORI must be refuted NOT Kurabayashl ???
If APOB claims weren't dismissed, Marine patents would not have been invalidated. Right?

anfla

10/01/20 8:15 AM

#302361 RE: eightisenough #302348

Do relies on Kurbayashi alone for the ApoB claims so just as relevant. You only need to restore a single parent claim not all patent claims

ilovetech

10/01/20 9:31 AM

#302371 RE: eightisenough #302348

8- quote: "Du relied on Mori-that's why MORI must be refuted NOT Kurabayashl. It doesn't matter what you think is essential--what matters is Du's reasoning."

Respectfully, IMO, you have fallen for the trap set up by the defense. Du concluded Prima facia obviousness first. In order to get there, she needed to knock off each objective indicia like ducks at a carnival shooting gallery.

DU agreed with the USPTO to reject BUT/FOR Mori, but falsely stated BUT/FOR Kura, when indeed, if NOT/FOR Kura the patents would not have been granted.

SO LDL AND STUDY POPULATION WAS A DISTRACTION. IF NOT/FOR KURA "UNEXPECTED" APO-B REDUCTION," NO VASCEPA.

The Defense understood that Kura had to be discredited to show that the USPTO DID NOT CONSIDER KURA. THEREFORE APO-B reduction is a ruse, B.S, fake news, not real... It worked, as we see on this board, the fallacy continues to stick.

ILT