Michael Perelman: "Can you explain what sort of delivery system was patented?"
REPLY: Michael: It was not a Chevrolet... But refers to the apparatus used to inject iNO into the inhaled gas stream of a patient being mechanically ventilated (ie someone on a 'respirator' - 'breathing machine'). This injection has to be at a controleld rate and able to monitor the concentration of the injected gas at the patient airway (trachae - windpipe). Not exactly rocket science, but does need certain accuracy & competency. But is this enough to effectively lock out opposition to a monopoly for treating infatns with this gas? I do not think so. But then I do not sit on judgments on this. Caroll: I do not see the problem - the messages appear succinct to me. Hari Kumar On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 10:15:46AM -0400, Hari Kumar wrote: > Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 07:51:32 -0700 > From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hari, are you saying that NO was patented? Tell me more!!! > > REPLY > Indeed, it is amazing is it not? A naturally occuring chemical is 'patented'. > > The legal aspect of this (apparently - I am not a lawyer) was argued that the 'delivery system' of the iNO - & the intent to treat infants with PPHN - was what really counted. >
