Patent terminology

The applicant thinks that D 1 doesn't describe that the so-called invention was taken away, so it can't be delivered to Sanofi-Synthetic Labo Canada Company V. It is expected that its claim has not met the requirements since D 1. Apotex 69 C.P.R Co., Ltd. (the fourth company). The examiner respectfully disagreed with the original art of the applicant's analysis. Clearly state v in Apotex court. Sanofi, ditto. Invented a so-called "claim that has been described in the subject according to the previous disclosure, if possible, enforcement and infringement". Similarly, the court also pointed out that it is irrelevant to evaluate the novelty of a given ingredient if the original information disclosure at that time is fully understood (see Abbott V, Canada (Minister of Health) (2006), Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation at the age of 56). (No.4) 387 in paragraphs 24-25).