Patent office rejects Tofacitinib patent application: An analysis [Part II]
Part I of this post examined whether the cited prior art actually qualifies as prior art for the purposes of prior claiming and also analyzed the patentability of an enantiomer over a racemic mixture. Part II of the post analyzes the Section 3(d) rejection and the potential influence it can have in future. Further Part II of the post also analyzes the extent of disclosure required for Section 8. [991/MUMNP/2003 DECISION]. In addition to prior claiming,the Controller also rejected the …
Patent office rejects Tofacitinib patent application: An analysis [Part II] Read More »