Court Opinion

ID: 9452004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:28:50.208452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:01.351452
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part, with whom MARTIN, J., joins).
The majority affirms the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-13, and 18-20 as unpatenable over the prior art use of nickel dithiocarbamates in stabilizing polypropylene. I agree with this portion of the majority opinion. However, I dissent from the majority opinion in which it reverses the board as to the rejection of claims 3, 6, 9, and 14-17. While I agree with the majority that the art with which we are here dealing is an empirical art and there is no direct teaching that polypropylene can be stabilized by the use of the cobalt salts as claimed in these claims, it seems to me that these claims do not define a non-obvious invention when measured against the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 103.
If we compare the claims which we agree should be rejected with those whose rejection the majority would reverse, we *935find that composition claims 3, 6, 9, and 14-17 are dependent claims which are based on the rejected claims. The only-difference in these claims is that instead of the nickel salt specified in the rejected claims, the corresponding cobalt salts are specified therein.
I note the majority’s reference to the reading of the rejected claims on the pri- or art which suggests to me that the rejection is treated by the majority essentially as an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). I think there is no question, despite the generality of some of the terms in which the rejection was phrased by the examiner and affirmed by the board, that the real statutory basis with which we should be here concerned is obviousness of the invention under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The board stated:
* * * we find ourselves in agreement with the Examiner that claims 1 through 20 are “unpatentable over Naunton et al. or Imperial Chemical alone or in combination with Tholstrup et al. or Hawkins et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103.” It is the Examiner’s stated position that where the prior art disclosed stabilization of polyethylene against the effects of light by means of nickel or cobalt dialkyldithiocarba-mate (Naunton et al. and Imperial Chemical), it would be obvious for a person skilled in the art to try these salts to stabilize polypropylene, particularly in view of the suggestion in Hawkins et al. and Tholstrup et al. to the effect that certain stabilizers can be used effectively for both polyethylene and polypropylene. * * *
The majority’s disagreement with this proposition pivots about the phrase “obvious * * * to try,” and appears to support its ultimate conclusion by finding that there was no prior art which taught the use of claimed cobalt salts to stabilize polypropylene compositions. I fully agree that in here considering the invention as a whole, the selection of the particular cobalt salts is a factor to be weighed before reaching the ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness or non-obviousness required by 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, I do not agree with what seems to me to be the majority’s rationale that such selection per se supports a finding of unobviousness under the facts here. I do not find that we are here concerned with a problem of the selection of particular materials from a universe which presents many choices. The art here is so developed that the majority finds the use of nickel salts to stabilize polypropylene to be unpatentable. In the composition claims 1, 4, 7, as well as in the process claims 18-20, the rejection of which the majority affirms, the stabilizing salt/ is selected from the group consisting of nickel and cobalt.
Thus, the issue here turns on the specific selection of the claimed cobalt salts for stabilizing polypropylene in view of the prior art and in the light of the agreed unpatentability of the invention where the corresponding nickel salts are claimed for the same purpose. The prior art teachings showed stabilization of polyethylene from degradation due to sunlight in Naunton, Italian and Hawkins. Naunton and Italian disclose the use of nickel dibutyldithioearbamate for this purpose. Italian further discloses a group of metal salts including cobalt dibutyldithioearbamate for stabilizing of polyethylene. Prior art recognized similarities between polyethylene and polypropylene as regards stabilization are shown in Hawkins and Tholstrup both of which teach that both polyethylene and polypropylene may be stabilized by the addition of the same compounds and Hawkins deals with degradation by sunlight. Thus, it seems to me one of ordinary skill in this art would be led by the Italian reference directly to the choice of cobalt dibutyldithioearbamate as a specific salt which is there shown to be effective in stabilizing polyethylene against degradation from sunlight. Thus the only difference between appellant’s claimed invention and the prior art is that they followed Tholstrup and Hawkins’ teachings and treated polypropylene with what the art had used to stabilize polyethylene. These circumstances suggest that the factor of selection stressed by appellants should be given relatively lit-*936tie weight in reaching the legal conclusion of obviousness under section 103.
The selection argument advanced by appellants and relied upon by the majority is not supported by the facts of record. The majority states, “There is not the slightest hint of even the class [of stabilizers] wherein to search.” It seems to me that this statement does not consider the teachings as a whole of the Italian patent. It is true that Italian begins by stating a large number of metal dithiocarbamates may be used. However, five specific examples employing metal dithiocarbamates are set forth. Example 1 shows tests with iron, cobalt and nickel; example 2 employs copper, cadmium, lead, bismuth . and selenium; examples 3 and 4 show nickel and zinc; and example 5 shows nickel. The qualitative results shows the preferred group of metals by a substantial margin is iron, cobalt and nickel with nickel being the best metal by a very small margin. Four of the five tests set forth employ nickel showing the effectiveness of it as a stabilizer.
Appellants set forth certain metal stabilizers which are allegedly ineffective, i. e., zinc, lead, selenium and bismuth. Italian specifically discloses the ineffectiveness of these metals as stabilizers as compared to the preferred group of iron, cobalt and nickel.
Appellants, in citing art to demonstrate the non-obviousness of their invention, place principal reliance on the statement quoted by the majority from Modern Plastics. I find that this statement is only general in nature and encompasses stabilizers developed for “polyole-fins, vinyl chlorides and the like.” It seems to me that the specific teachings in Italian, Tholstrup, etc., relied upon by the Patent Office, are the “teachings which a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider the most pertinent and accord the most weight” as they are “closely concerned ,with the claimed invention.” In re Lunsford, 357 F.2d 385, 53 CCPA-1
On the present record, it seems to me that either the substitution of cobalt salts for nickel salts or the substitution of polypropylene for polyethylene in the art of record would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. § 103. I would, therefore, affirm the decision of the board as to claims 3, 6, 9 and 14-17.

. Appellants in their brief do not discuss the teachings of the Belgian patent. The other teachings of the references relied upon by appellants are adequately set forth in the majority and I find they are far from specific as are the teachings relied upon by the Patent Office. Accordingly, the teachings relied on by the Patent Office are clearly entitled to more weight.