"She thought that if that "surpise"(sp) was valid the patents had a chance of standing up."
Peter...When Mercedes advertises they have 30,000 (or whatever they say) patents...It doesn't mean each and everyone of these patents pertains to a separate and unique solution..The very idea of having 19 patents, each one of them costing the company money to research and register, is to form 19 barriers.
I am very familiar with the "surprise"...in fact was the first to point out (on the Yahoo Board) the 889 PTO examiner's embarrassing algebra error in his initial Non Final Rejection (NFR), where he mistakenly claimed that if the sum of two integers was a positive number, then both integers must be positive numbers. Furthermore I predicted that his second NFR which he based on Katayama's "prior art" would be eventually allowed based on the PTO exception for "new and significant discovery" from prior art...
That AMRNs discovery of the fact high concentrations of EPA in the absence of DHA reduced Triglycerides without raising LDL-C was a "surprise" was well established by the ensuing NFRs...The surprise came about because normally when Trigs are lowered, the VLDL fraction which contains them, is fractionally converted to LDL-C once the Trig level in the VLDL particle drops below 50%...This results in an elevation of the LDL-C proportional to the Trig decrease. How concentrated EPA does this is not clear, but possibly it prevents the VLDL conversion to LDL..or somehow removes LDL.
IMHO...in light of the pathophysiological rationale and the thorough review in the various PTO NFRs...These patents are very very strong and I do not see anybody breaking them...
Respectfully..":>) JL
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
