initial promise for the treatment of multiple sclerosis, but that failed because of lack of efficacy or significant side effects. (Sept. Tr. (Lisak) 131:14— 136:19; PTX 99; PTX 523; PTX 538; PTX 591; PTX 605; PTX 616; PTX 617; PTX 623; PTX 626; PTX 627; PTX 644.) The patents-in-suit are directed to the problem of developing an effective, safe, and tolerable treatment for multiple sclerosis. Each of the failed attempted therapies were similarly aimed at finding an effective, safe, and tolerable treatment for multiple sclerosis. Copaxone®’s success in light of these failed attempts provides further confirmation of the non-obviousness of the asserted claims. See Yamanouchi Pharm. Co., 21 F.Supp.2d at 374; Eli Lilly & Co., 364 F.Supp.2d at 832; see also Uniroyal, Inc., 837 F.2d at 1054 (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). 4) Unexpected Results
recognizing principle recognizing the established principle that the alj is not required to take the claimants assertions of pain at face value recognizing the well established principle that the failure of others to provide a feasible solution to a long standing problem is probative of nonobviousness recognizing this principle in the failure to hire context recognizing same principle