The CAFC decision gets into issues with enantiomers. A scientific publication by Smith had asserted that one enantiomer would be more potent, but it did not teach "how" to get the pure enantiomer. Thus, the CAFC got into the issue of whether the prior art reference was enabling, citing to Minnesota Mining, 303 F.3d 1294. An interesting point is that the prior art paper predicted INCORRECTLY as to which enantiomer was more potent.
There is a line: a reference that is not enabling is not anticipating, citing to Elan 346 F.3d 1051. This reference could be used by the USPTO in disposing of certain rejections in the WARF / Thomson re-examination.
There is also a line about how IVAX only discusses evidence favorable to IVAX without discussing evidence favorable to Forest.
There is an analysis of a broadening reissue.
[Recall: Teva Pharmaceuticals (TEVA) said in July 2005 that it would buy U.S. rival Ivax (IVX) for $7.4 billion to create the world's biggest maker of generic prescription drugs.]