Opinion ID: 460292
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the process claims of the '797 patent

Text: 65 The district court found that the Rothrock patent described a process for manufacturing phenol-formaldehyde resins wherein: (1) a formaldehyde/phenol ratio greater than 1 was taught; (2) the use of paraformaldehyde, the anhydrous form of formaldehyde, was disclosed; (3) a temperature range of 100-120 ?C was taught; (4) the removal of water was taught in certain examples; and (5) the use of soluble metal salt catalysts including zinc acetate was disclosed. One point of contention 25 as to what the Rothrock patent disclosed was whether Rothrock taught one skilled in the art the removal of water during the process which was consonant in scope to the water-removal limitation of the '797 process claims. B.1 Robins' '797 Process 66 Process claim 1 of the '797 patent, an independent claim, describes a material claim limitation which requires the phenolic-resin producing reaction to be conducted under substantially anhydrous conditions with the removal of water above 100 ?C. The materiality of this limitation is disclosed in the '797 specification wherein it is stated that the failure to continuously remove water not only affects the activity of the catalysts, but also the structure of the product formed, in permitting, for example, para-substitution, and that the presence of water results in reaction products which cannot be cured to mechanically strong resins by the use of acidic agents at room temperature. (Our emphasis). The specification further discloses that the process of the present invention is carried out in equipment which will provide for the continuous removal of water from the reaction mixture. (Our emphasis). The water-removal limitation of the process claims of the '797 patent, therefore, requires that water be continuously removed during the polymer formation stage of the reaction, ACS Hospital Systems, 732 F.2d at 1577, 221 USPQ at 932 (the claim here in issue is read and construed in light of the specification), i.e., at temperatures above 100 ?C where the phenol-formaldehyde adduct--a mixture of dimethylol phenols, benzylic ethers and methylene-bridged phenols--is condensed to form the three-ring or greater phenolic resin. B.2 The Rothrock Process 67 In contrast, the Rothrock patent in general did not teach or suggest the removal of water during the process described therein, nor was there any teaching or suggestion that the removal of water during the process was a critical limitation. More particularly, there was no teaching or suggestion that water was to be removed during the phenolic resin formation stage of the reaction, i.e., at temperatures above 100 ?C. Only Example I of Rothrock disclosed a removal of water, teaching that a small amount of water which had formed on the sides of the reaction flask was removed from the resulting clear liquid formed by the process. 26 This water was removed, however, after the resin of the process had been formed, i.e., at temperatures well below 100 ?C. The equipment for the process of Rothrock as disclosed in the examples did include an air condensor. 27 Mr. Kopac testified that there was no disclosure or teaching in the Rothrock patent of the function being performed by the air condensor, and that it could not be said with any certainty that the air condensor functioned to remove or retain water in the reaction zone during the Rothrock process. Examples II, III, IV and VII of the Rothrock patent disclosed that the reaction mixture was heated at reflux. 28 This disclosure would have suggested to one skilled in the art that water was not removed, nor was there any necessity for doing so, during the reaction process of Rothrock. W.L. Gore, 721 F.2d at 1550, 220 USPQ at 311 (a reference must have been considered in its entirety, for disclosures which taught away from an invention as well as disclosures which directed one to the invention). There was no clear teaching or suggestion in Rothrock that water was to be removed at any step during the condensation process disclosed therein, but rather only after the phenolic condensation was completed. Moreover, the Rothrock reference as a whole suggested that water was retained during the reaction process. See supra note 27 and text following, and note 28. 68 The district court found that the Rothrock patent had not taught the removal of water above 100? C. Yet, the district court subsequently found that one of ordinary skill could have read Rothrock and recognized that varying the solvent in Example V and removing water--as Rothrock had done in Examples I and VII 29 --yielded a process which could have been substantially similar to the '797 process. These findings by the court are in direct conflict. Since the '797 process claims contain a material limitation directed to the removal of water above 100? C, Lemelson, 752 F.2d at 1551, 224 USPQ at 533, and since the district court found that Rothrock did not teach removal of water above 100? C, there was no basis for the court's finding that the Rothrock process was substantially similar to the '797 process since the Rothrock process lacked this material limitation. See supra note 21. Accordingly, we hold that this finding of the district court is clearly erroneous. B.3 The Japanese Patent 69 The Japanese Patent, the court found, described a process for producing phenol-formaldehyde initial condensates, by reacting phenol and formaldehyde: (1) under anhydrous polymerization conditions, i.e., starting with paraformaldehyde and removing water; (2) at temperatures above 100 ?C and as high as 120 ?C; and (3) using soluble metal salts as catalysts. Further, the district court found that although the examples in the Japanese Patent taught a formaldehyde/phenol ratio less than 1, the specification taught that this ratio could be greater than 1. 70 While the process disclosed in the Japanese Patent did teach the use of paraformaldehyde, or another substance having the same effectiveness, and the continuous removal of water, the Japanese Patent should have been considered in its entirety, with due consideration given to disclosures that diverged or taught away from the invention here at issue, as well as disclosures which directed one skilled in the art to the invention. W.L. Gore, 721 F.2d at 1550, 220 USPQ at 311. 71 The Japanese Patent disclosed a process for producing a phenol-formaldehyde initial condensate in which phenol was added to a polar solvent such as ordinary alcohol, paraformaldehyde or a substance having similar effectiveness was dissolved into the phenol directly in a molar ratio range of 0.5-1.5 of formaldehyde/phenol, and this mixture was reacted in the presence of a weak alkaline catalyst 30 with the continuous elimination of water to produce a liquid mixture of 2-methylolphenol or 2-methylolphenol and 2, 6-dimethylolphenol. This resulting liquid mixture was then acidified to induce a condensation reaction to form 2, 2'-dihydroxydiphenyl methane and/or other methylolation products. The specification further taught that the hydroxide induced the ortho orientation of formaldehyde in a non-water system and that alkoxyphenoxymethane accelerated the ortho linkage during condensation. 31 The specification further taught that the process reaction could have been effected without dissolving the phenol in a polar solvent, i.e., a solvent need not be used. 72 In contrast, the '797 specification teaches that the soluble metal salt catalyst is a metal ionically bonded to a salt radical, and that this salt radical should be that of a stronger acid, one having a dissociation constant greater than 10- 8 , to prevent cross-linking during the formation of the reaction product. Further, while the process claims of the '797 patent do not incorporate a specific limitation calling for the use of a solvent, the specification discloses that in the preferred embodiment of the process a non-polar organic solvent is utilized. While the Japanese Patent taught that the use of a solvent was optional, it also taught that when a solvent was used, it must have been a polar solvent. W.L. Gore, 721 F.2d at 1551, 220 USPQ at 311. 73 To the extent that the district court concluded that the Japanese Patent by itself would have rendered the subject matter of the process claims of the '797 patent obvious, this conclusion is erroneous as a matter of law. The Japanese Patent clearly taught, at a minimum, 32 that an alkaline catalyst, to induce the ortho orientation of the formaldehyde, was a material element of the process. See supra note 31. Moreover, the reaction of this process was a two stage reaction wherein the reactants were first exposed to an alkaline catalyst, and the resulting liquid mixture was then acidified to produce the final reaction product. The process claims of the '797 patent, in contrast, do not use an alkaline catalyst, nor is the '797 process a two stage reaction for the formation of a phenolic resin which requires initial reaction of the phenol and formaldehyde with an alkaline catalyst, and then the acidification of the resulting liquid mixture. 74 To the extent that the district court concluded that the teachings of the Japanese Patent could have been combined with the teachings of the Rothrock Patent to reach the conclusion that the subject matter of the '797 process claims would have been obvious, this conclusion is erroneous as a matter of law. See supra note 24. The district court did not point to any teachings or suggestions in either reference which would have led one skilled in the art to perceive an advantage to be derived from their combination. ACS Hospital Systems, 732 F.2d at 1577, 221 USPQ at 933; W.L. Gore, 721 F.2d at 1551, 220 USPQ at 311. In point of fact, the teachings of the two references would have led one skilled in the art away from their combination. Rothrock taught that his process could not be practiced using an alkali earth metallic hydroxide catalyst. In contrast, the Japanese Patent required such a catalyst. Rothrock required the use of a solvent, which could have been either polar or non-polar while the Japanese Patent taught that the use of a solvent was optional. Further, the Japanese Patent taught that when a solvent was used, it must be polar. The Japanese Patent also taught that the formaldehyde/phenol ratio could have a range of 0.5-1.5 while Rothrock required that the ratio must be greater than 1. B.4 The Fraser Reference 75 The district court found that the Fraser reference taught the effectiveness of zinc and lead as catalysts to form ortho-ortho linked phenol-formaldehyde chains and that ether bridges were formed at reaction temperatures below 140 ?C. The court also found, however, that the Fraser reference did not teach the removal of water above 100 ?C and that the method of Fraser did not produce compounds having more than two phenol rings. 76 A reference, however, should also have been considered for its antithetical teachings. W.L. Gore, 721 F.2d at 1550, 220 USPQ at 311. One of the critical teachings of Fraser was that the formaldehyde/phenol ratio must be less than 1, i.e., a molar excess of phenol was required for the method. It would be error as a matter of law if the district court concluded that the subject matter of the process claims of the '797 patent would have been obvious in view of the Fraser reference alone. Nor was there any teaching or suggestion that would have led one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of the Fraser reference with either the teachings of the Rothrock patent or the teachings of the Japanese Patent, or both. ACS Hospital Systems, 732 F.2d at 1577, 221 USPQ at 933. B.5 Conclusion 77 We held supra that the district court's finding that the Rothrock process was substantially similar to the process of the '797 patent was clearly erroneous. Further, we are not persuaded that the other facts, discussed supra, which the district court relied upon in reaching its legal conclusion that the subject matter of claims 1, 2, and 7 of the '797 patent would have been obvious, were proven by clear and convincing evidence, Lindemann Maschinenfabrik, 730 F.2d at 1459, 221 USPQ at 486; SSIH Equipment, 718 F.2d at 375, 218 USPQ at 687, such that it cannot be said that Delta had sustained its burden of proof before the district court. It was error as a matter of law for the district court to conclude that processes of claims 1, 2 and 7 of the '797 patent would have been obvious. 33 C. THE CLAIMS OF THE '392 AND '579 PATENTS 78 Claim 17 of the '392 patent is directed to a foundry mix having sand as the major constituent and up to 10 percent by weight of sand of a resin composition. The resin composition comprises in admixture a benzylic ether resin substantially similar to the phenolic resin claimed in claim 10 of the '797 patent, 34 a hardener component defined as a liquid polyisocyanate, and a curing catalyst defined as a base having a pKb value in the range of about 7 to about 11. Claim 14 of the '579 patent is directed to a foundry mix similar to that of claim 17, except that the phenolic resin of the binder composition is the resin as claimed in claim 10 of the '797 patent, and the curing agent is defined as a tertiary amine. Claim 19 of the '579 patent is directed to a process for preparing foundry shapes using the foundry mix of claim 14.