一篇發表在Nature有關顯而易見性的論文 - 專利

版上的各位好~
我在念一篇論文, 有些地方看不懂, 希望可以請教各位先進 :)
Nature Reviews 2008 (7): 636-7
Defining obviousness with the right question
http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v7/n8/full/nrd2651.html

在第二個範例中提到..
AstraZeneca公司有一項非典型抗精神病藥物Seroquel的專利(2011年到期),
此藥物主成分為quetiapine.

有兩家學名藥廠Teva和Sandoz於2008年提告, 聲稱Seroquel成分還包括其中四種藥物，
但是A在申請Seroquel的專利時，除了其主打成份quetiapine之外，
並未附上其餘四個化合物的資料。
且這四個化合物之實驗結果與Seroquel專利中的內容有矛盾(不知為啥T和S會知道 XD)，
所以有故意欺騙的美國專利局的嫌疑。

主要看不懂的地方用黃色標示

The primary argument of Teva and Sandoz was that AstraZeneca failed to give
the PTO data on four specific compounds (aside from quetiapine) that also
behaved as potential atypical antipsychotics. They said that this was highly
material because this data contradicted the main argument for the patentability
of Seroquel. This was namely that the favourable properties of Seroquel
were not processed by structurally related prior art compounds.

意思是指T和S認為Seroquel並不是以跟現有技術的結構類似化合物相同嗎？所以應該
要提供另外四種化合物的資料嗎？

AstraZeneca responded that this argument was based on a "misreading" of the
wording used in the prosecution of the patent. Teva and Sandoz's interpretation
that 'no' prior art processed favourable properties was wrong, the wording
meant the 'closest' prior art, which the four compounds did not belong to. The
court held that with "plain reading in appropriate context" the reading of the
patent by the generics companies was incorrect. The Court also sided with
AstraZeneca on three additional points that were not deliberately withheld from
the PTO, and summary judgement was granted.

A的反駁是說T和S誤解專利公開文件中的意思，S和T認為沒有已有技術是錯的，正確的措辭
是：最接近現有技術，而四個化合物不屬於其中。

我不曉得這是什麼意思？為什麼法官認同A呢？

※ 編輯: paua 來自: 140.129.61.147 (05/30 02:20)