About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« USPTO Requests Public Comments on Artificial Intelligence and Inventorship | Main | Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2023) »

February 15, 2023


Forget Myriad and its siblings: even in 2005, why would one not have included a claim on this composition that recites, for example, a ratio of ingredients not found in nature, e.g. a ratio of NR to lactose that is several times higher than that found in milk, and include evidence showing a correlation between that higher-than-natural ratio and some unexpected result? I don't like to second-guess fellow practitioners, so I'll assume there was a considered reason the omission, but as a Monday morning quarterback, it seems like such a claim would have been desirable back then too.

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29