position as the focus of the insecticidal heterocyclic compounds. Specifically, in contrast to the facts of
In re Driscoll, Shiokawa has failed to demonstrate that the plain language of the ‘146 patent directs
one skilled in the art to the particular Z or E groups as the focus of the invention such that each of the
various possible permutations for the Z group and E group is described by the ‘146 patent. Moreover,
the ‘146 patent does not direct one skilled in the art to focus upon those heterocycles possessing a
symmetrical core, e.g., -N-CH -B-CH -N- where B is O, S or N-R . 2
2 2
4. Maienfisch’s Published Abstract Does Not Evidence the Shiokawa’s
Possession of the 1,3,5-oxadiazines
Shiokawa contends that Dr. Maienfisch published an abstract having the following formula:
N NO2
N NH
Cl N X
X = NR, O, S
Novartis & others (>1989)
(Paper No. 81, p.22 and SX 2083). According to Shiokawa, this formula and caption demonstrate
that “Maienfisch concedes that the specifications of the involved Shiokawa ‘146 patent and its
equivalent foreign counterparts disclose O and S heteroatoms in the middle of the Z chain.” (Paper
No. 81, p. 22).
50
Page: Previous 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007