... claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person ...
... the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. “[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Id. Moreover, a person ...
Indeed, it is undisputed that anthracyclines produce “cumulative cardiac injury” that “causes the greatest concern.” See, e.g., Ex. 2030,22 409, 423 (anthracycline-induced cardiac toxicity “is difficult to treat and is associated with a high mortality”). It was known that with each dose of an anthracycline, “there is ...
... ’94, but the prior art as a whole, including Baselga ’96, the 1995 TAXOL PDR entry, and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. More importantly, patentability is assessed from the perspective of the hypothetical person ...
After reviewing the entire record, we determine that the combination of Baselga ’96 and Baselga ’94 teaches or suggests each limitation of claim 1, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the ...
Clarke’s declaration is irrelevant because it does not represent the views of a person of ordinary skill in the art,” who is a “clinical or medical oncologist.” Id. at 1.
Id. at 3; see also id. at 3–4 (further arguing that because Dr. Clarke is not a person of ordinary skill in the art, his testimony should also be excluded under FRE 403, 602, 801, and 802).
“A person may not need to be a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to testify as an expert under Rule 702, but rather must be ‘qualified in the pertinent art.’” Id. (citing Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, ...