版上的各位好~ 我在念一篇论文, 有些地方看不懂, 希望可以请教各位先进 :) Nature Reviews 2008 (7): 636-7 Defining obviousness with the right question http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v7/n8/full/nrd2651.html 在第二个范例中提到.. AstraZeneca公司有一项非典型抗精神病药物Seroquel的专利(2011年到期), 此药物主成分为quetiapine. 有两家学名药厂Teva和Sandoz於2008年提告, 声称Seroquel成分还包括其中四种药物， 但是A在申请Seroquel的专利时，除了其主打成份quetiapine之外， 并未附上其余四个化合物的资料。 且这四个化合物之实验结果与Seroquel专利中的内容有矛盾(不知为啥T和S会知道 XD)， 所以有故意欺骗的美国专利局的嫌疑。 主要看不懂的地方用黄色标示 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认为Seroquel并不是以跟现有技术的结构类似化合物相同吗？所以应该 要提供另外四种化合物的资料吗？ 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的反驳是说T和S误解专利公开文件中的意思，S和T认为没有已有技术是错的，正确的措辞 是：最接近现有技术，而四个化合物不属於其中。 我不晓得这是什麽意思？为什麽法官认同A呢？ ※ 编辑: paua 来自: 140.129.61.147 (05/30 02:20)