The obviousness rejection as a barrier to biotech patent prosecution

Nature Biotechnology

Volumn 27, Issue 12, 2009, Pages 1125-1126

  Wang, Shyh Jen ^a  

^a NATIONAL YANG MING UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; COURT; GOVERNMENT; JURISPRUDENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SHORT SURVEY; UNITED STATES;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; LIABILITY, LEGAL; OWNERSHIP; PATENTS AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 71849118194     PISSN: 10870156     EISSN: 15461696     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nbt1209-1125     Document Type: Short Survey

References (11)

1. Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co. 234 F.3d 654 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
2. Inre Dembiczak 175 F3.d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
3. Inre Kotzab 217 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
4. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. 550 US 398 (2007).
5. Wong, H.K. & Lau, D. Nat. Biotechnol. 27, 446-448 (2009).
6. Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd. 492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
7. Pharmastem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc., et al. 491 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
8. Inre Kubin- F.3d-, No.2008-1184 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
9. Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc. 480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
10. Inre Peterson 315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
11. WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech. 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999).