PFIZER INC. v. SANOFI VACCINES US INC. [OPINION]

PFIZER INC. v. SANOFI VACCINES US INC. [OPINION] Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized. Review the linked PDF before publication. The extracted conclusion below is included for audit. AFFIRMED conclusion that proposed substitute claim 46 would have been obvious, but that the Board's decision was "silent as to why proposed substitute claims 48 and 49 would have been obvious over the refer- ences," offering no analysis and only "a conclusory state- ment" for those claims. Id. Specifically, we concluded that the Board's determination as to the 2-log increase for the serotypes recited in proposed substitute claims 48 and 49 was not supported by substantial evidence, and it therefore abused its discretion in denying Pfizer's motion to amend. Id. at 1353. We therefore remanded "for the Board to fur- ther consider Pfizer's motion[]." Id. On remand, the Board concluded that proposed substi- tute claims 48 and 49 would also have been obvious, and in doing so concluded that a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a 2-log in- crease above serum I § 103 remand non-precedential § 103 remand non-precedential § 103 remand