Advertisement
Grab your lab coat. Let's get started
Welcome!
Welcome!
Create an account below to get 6 C&EN articles per month, receive newsletters and more - all free.
It seems this is your first time logging in online. Please enter the following information to continue.
As an ACS member you automatically get access to this site. All we need is few more details to create your reading experience.
Not you? Sign in with a different account.
Not you? Sign in with a different account.
ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
Environment
Obviousness ruling
July 2, 2007
| A version of this story appeared in
Volume 85, Issue 27
THE SUPREME COURT'S ruling is rather ridiculous (C&EN, May 7, page 13). Because of the complexity of some racemates, resolving them into the component stereoisomers is no easy task. Any company that succeeds in this process deserves a patent, not just a process patent but a patent on the active isomer. This presumes that the other isomer will not be found "effective" for some other use and approved by the Food & Drug Administration, actually doing more harm than good.
Art Goldkamp
Redmond, Wash.
You might also like...
The power is now in your (nitrile gloved) hands
Sign up for a free account to get more articles. Or choose the ACS option that’s right for you.
Already have an ACS ID? Log in
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on Twitter