Court Opinion

ID: 9448703
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:43:10.721223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:31.890868
License: Public Domain

KIRKPATRICK, Judge,
with whom WORLEY, Chief Judge, joins (concurring) .
I concur with the result, basing my concurrence on my interpretation of the affidavit submitted that the word “curarimimetie” is equivalent to “neuromuscular blocking agent” and, in that sense, ambiguous. Therefore, it is neither a change of utility nor a contradiction of utility but a clarification for the applicant to assert that his drugs have anticholinesterase activity and are antidotes for d-tubocurarine since in the prior art neuromuscular block was accomplished by drugs acting such as d-tubocurarine for which anticholinesterase drugs are antidotes and by drugs acting in another manner not fully understood for which anticholinesterase drugs were not antidotes but, in fact, active agents, depending on the dosage.