“A teaching that a composition may be optimal or standard does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into other compositions,” as required for a showing that a given reference teaches away from the invention claimed.
Background / Facts: The asserted patents are directed to methods of treating acne using pharmaceutical compositions. In this regard, the claims recite 0.3% topical adapalene compositions for the treatment of acne, which fall within the concentration range disclosed in the prior art. Thus, the prior art discloses all of the limitations of the asserted claims, except for a precise teaching of 0.3% adapalene (and certain inactive ingredients acknowledged as being routine and obvious). The prior art does, however, espouse a preference for a lower concentration of 0.1% adapalene.
Issue(s): Whether the prior art’s preference for a lower concentration of 0.1% adapalene teaches away from the higher concentration of 0.3% adapalene claimed.
Holding(s): No. It was not disputed that conventionally “0.1% was the standard or optimal concentration of adapalene for the treatment of acne. The [district] court concluded that this fact teaches away from 0.3% adapalene compositions. It does not. … A teaching that a composition may be optimal or standard does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into other compositions.”