Opinion ID: 855670
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the kimura patents

Text: The Kimura patents are directed to a method of ap- plying a broad-spectrum insecticide known as Fipronil. The goal of the patented method is to protect existing or planned buildings against “crawling insects, especially against termites.” ’010 Patent col. 1 ll. 6–8. According to the patented method, “an effective amount of insecticide active compound is spread around or under the said building at discrete locations.” Id. at [57] (abstract) (emphasis added). The following illustration in the ’010 Patent shows an example of these “discrete locations,” which are illustrated as opaque boxes placed around the outline of a building’s perimeter: Id. col. 5 ll. 27–35. According to the Kimura patents’ shared specification, the patented method provides an advantage over prior art methods which required “operators [to] apply the chemical around or under the building or houses to form a barrier against termites [sic] invasion.” Id. col. 1 ll. 10–13. The specification explains that the prior art methods suffered from a significant disadvantage: “loopholes in the treatment[s] may cause failure of protection of the houses.” Id. col. 1 ll. 13–14. The Kimura patents sought to alleviate this problem by providing “a curative treatment which is effective even when attacked parts are untreated,” that is, the patents sought “to provide a termite treatment without barrier.” Id. col. 1 ll. 35–37, 43–45. 6 BASF AGRO v. MAKHTESHIM AGAN According to the patented method, “the active ingredient is applied on discrete locus [sic],” id. col. 3 ll. 41–42, “inside or outside the outline of the house or buildings to be built,” id. col. 3 ll. 23–25. Representative claim 1 of the ’010 Patent recites a “[p]rocess for the protection of a building against damage caused by insects,” comprising b) forming treated and untreated locations along the perimeter of the building by applying an effective amount of said solution or suspension to discrete locations around or under said building along the perimeter of the building, wherein the treated locations are the discrete locations along the perimeter of the building where said solution or suspension has been applied and the untreated locations are the remaining portions of the perimeter where the solution or suspension was not applied; wherein the combination of said treated locations and said untreated locations along the perim- eter of the building equal the total perimeter of the building and further wherein said treated locations make up 0.5 to 7.5 meter per 10 meter of the total perimeter of the building .... Id. col. 5, claim 1 (emphasis added). In accordance with the description in the specification, the claim requires both “treated and untreated locations along the perimeter of the building” instead of a continuous barrier without loopholes.
During prosecution of the ’010 Patent, the examiner rejected Kimura’s claimed invention as obvious in view of several prior art references. Although Kimura sought to distinguish the cited prior art references, the examiner issued a final rejection. Following the examiner’s final BASF AGRO v. MAKHTESHIM AGAN 7 rejection, Kimura filed a response including a declaration supporting patentability made by Dr. Joe Hope (the “Hope declaration”), whom Kimura held out as one of ordinary skill in the art. Dr. Hope suggested that, in contrast to Kimura’s invention, all prior art methods taught forming a complete barrier without loopholes. In response to the Hope declaration, the examiner allowed Kimura’s application, which issued as the ’010 Patent on July 2, 2002.
The examiner initially rejected the claims of Kimura’s patent application as obvious in view of a combination of prior art references. These references included two U.S. patents to Crosby and Mihealsick (U.S. Patent Nos. 3,624,953 and 5,390,440) (“Crosby” and “Mihealsick”), and two international applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (Int’l Pub. Nos. WO 95/22902 and WO 96/16544). The examiner found that the international applications taught “that fipronil is an old termiticide applied to the same locus of the claims.” The examiner also found that the Crosby and Mihealsick patents “disclose methods of combating termites by applying a termiticide to discrete locations around a building or into the ground around a building.” Kimura sought to overcome the examiner’s rejections by distinguishing the cited references. Kimura distinguished the Crosby patent as being “designed to provide a ‘barrier’ around the building to be protected” rather than forming both “treated and untreated locations” as in Kimura’s claimed invention: [T]he method disclosed in the Crosby patent is de- signed to provide a barrier around the building to be protected. There is no teaching or suggestion in the Crosby patent of a method for the protec- tion of a building wherein a dilute solution or suspension of an insecticide in a liquid is applied to 8 BASF AGRO v. MAKHTESHIM AGAN discrete locations along the perimeter of the building so as to form treated and untreated locations. (emphasis added). Kimura similarly distinguished the Mihealsick patent as requiring “the formation of a barrier that has no untreated locations”: There is no teaching or suggestion whatsoever of a process for the protection of a building wherein a dilute solution or suspension of an insecticide is applied to discrete locations along the perimeter of the building to form treated and untreated loca- tions. In contrast, the purpose of Mihealsick apparatus and method is to ensure the formation of a barrier that has no untreated locations. Kimura insisted that the prior art did not contain any “teachings or suggestions that would motivate an artisan of ordinary skill to deviate from the established practice of creating a continuous barrier around a building.” Kimura argued that none of the cited references “teaches the deliberate creation of untreated locations (i.e., loopholes) through which the crawling insect can reach the building without being exposed to the insecticide.” “In fact,” Kimura urged, “all of the cited documents teach away from this approach because they endeavor to create a barrier between the crawling insects and the building so that the insect cannot reach the building without being exposed to the insecticide.” The Examiner was not persuaded by Kimura’s argu- ments, and in a final Office action rejected Kimura’s claims as obvious in view of the cited prior art references. The Examiner noted, The prior art teaches that the same composition may be applied to the same locus in the same amounts. Therefore, the results would clearly be the same. The above rejection is deemed proper and adhered to. BASF AGRO v. MAKHTESHIM AGAN 9
In response to the examiner’s final rejection, Kimura filed an amendment to the claims and submitted a declaration by Dr. Joe Hope. Kimura represented Dr. Hope as an “artisan who is clearly skilled in this field.” Kimura’s remarks argued that “Dr. Hope verifies that . . . a skilled artisan would not have attempted to protect a structure against [termites] . . . by applying an insecticidally active substance to discrete locations around the perimeter of the structure so as to form treated and untreated locations around the perimeter of the structure in the manner claimed.” Remarks 9–10. Kimura also argued that “Dr. Hope also verifies that the cited prior art is all directed to so called ‘barrier’ treatment techniques, wherein a complete barrier is formed around the perimeter of a structure to be protected.” Remarks 10. In his declaration, Dr. Hope stated that “the teaching of the common general knowledge and prior art . . . directs the skilled artisan to make a barrier treatment of chemical insecticide around a structure.” Dr. Hope individually distinguished the prior art references cited by the examiner. The Crosby patent, he said, “recites a method wherein a volatile insecticide is placed at discrete locations around a house with the intention that the insecticide may vaporize and thus create a barrier to termite ingress.” The Mihealsick reference, Dr. Hope said, involves the application of insecticide “under a concrete slab and/or around a house” for the purpose of “creating or regenerating a barrier.” Dr. Hope characterized Kimura’s claimed invention as an “unobvious and surprising process” because “insecticide is applied to discrete locations along the perimeter of the structure to form treated and untreated locations along the perimeter.” Based on Dr. Hope’s declaration and Kimura’s re- marks, the examiner allowed the claims of Kimura’s application. 10 BASF AGRO v. MAKHTESHIM AGAN