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.
In his letter to the editor, Art Goldcamp says a patent should be issued on a resolved stereoisomer, not just the resolving process, because the process is hard to do (C&EN, July 2, page 2). The basis for a patent, though, is not whether something is easy or hard but whether it is new, useful, and not obvious.
For the resolving process, this could very well be true. For the isomer itself, Goldcamp undercuts his own argument by stating, "This presumes that the other isomer will not be found 'effective' for some other use." In other words, it's already well-known (obvious) to those skilled in the art that most racemates have an active and an ineffective isomer.
Robert Opitz
Hilton, N.Y.
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on X