Court Opinion

ID: 9476005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:45:21.703702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:04.742973
License: Public Domain

*689PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree in the court’s result, but respectfully do not share the view that the PTO did not present a prima facie case that the claimed invention would have been obvious in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 103. I write separately because the determination of whether a prima facie case of obviousness has been made is a critical decision that controls the evidentiary procedures and burdens before the PTO.
The claims are directed to a three-component system to control scale and corrosion in cooling water systems, the components being (1) zinc ions, (2) a copolymer of sulfo-nated styrene and maleic anhydride (SSMA), and (3) an organo-phosphorus acid or salt. Á three-part system is described in the Ii reference for the same purpose, but differs from applicant’s system in that the copolymer component (2) is different. There is no teaching of SSMA in the Ii reference. However, the Snyder ’733 reference teaches SSMA in combination with other polymers to control scale in cooling water systems. The use of SSMA in cooperation with phosphonate is known to reduce scale and sludge in boilers (Hwa). Hwa does not use zinc ions, and it is known that zinc ions produce undesirable results in boilers, but the Ii reference states that it was known to use zinc ions alone or in combination with organo-phophorus acids or salts to inhibit corrosion in cooling water.
Thus each of Geiger’s three components has been described, separately or in partial combination, for use in cooling water systems. In my view, it would have been prima facie obvious to replace the polymer component of Ii with the known scale inhibitor SSMA, or to add an organophosphorus compound and zinc ions, both known corrosion inhibitors, to SSMA to achieve both scale and corrosion resistance in cooling water systems. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980); Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Ansul Co., 213 USPQ 1024, 1033-34 (E.D.Wis.1981). The Board so held.
The applicant, in rebuttal of the PTO’s prima facie case, argued that his three-component system exhibits superior properties, and that the superiority was not obvious in view of the cited references. In support of this argument the applicant relied on experimental data in the specification.
The specification contains data on the corrosion/scale control capability of various combinations of components, including data comparing the applicant’s three-part system containing SSMA with other three-part systems containing other preferred scale-preventing polymers of the prior art. These data showed significant superiority of applicant’s system; this was not disputed. The Board nevertheless held that the prima facie case was not rebutted because the applicant did not include data showing the properties of SSMA alone, stating that “the superior performance of such compositions may be due to the superiority of SSMA vis-a-vis the other scale-preventing copolymers.”
I agree with the Board to the extent that it would have been of scientific interest to include such data. However, as a matter of law I believe that the applicant’s showing was reasonable and sufficient. He complied with the requirement that the comparative showing “must be sufficient to permit a conclusion respecting the relative effectiveness of applicant’s claimed compounds and the compounds of the closest prior art,” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 316, 203 USPQ 245, 256 (CCPA 1979), and must “provide an adequate basis to support a legal conclusion of unobviousness.” In re Johnson, 747 F.2d 1456,1461, 223 USPQ 1260, 1264 (Fed.Cir.1984). The applicant demonstrated the exceptional corrosion inhibition achieved with his three-part system in comparison with systems containing the known corrosion inhibitors zinc ion and or-ganophosphorus compounds. He also compared his combination with systems containing other known polymeric scale inhibitors such as those taught by Ii,. and demonstrated that those systems did not provide the improvement in corrosion and scale control achieved with the SSMA combination. He also demonstrated that neither polyma-*690leic anhydride nor sulfonated polystyrene had the same effect on corrosion resistance as did the SSMA copolymer.
Applicant compared his system with the most relevant prior art. It is not required that the claimed invention be compared with subject matter that does not exist in the prior art. The applicant is not required to create prior art, nor to prove that his invention would have been obvious if the prior art were different than it actually was.
The Board also upheld the examiner’s additional rejection that it would have been obvious to add zinc ion to the two-component SSMA/phosphonate system of Hwa. The Hwa system is for the reduction of scale and sludge at the high temperatures of steam boilers, and it was uncontroverted that zinc ion is not usable at high temperatures. Applicant provided data showing that the Hwa system is relatively ineffective in a cooling system. The Board did not contradict this position on its scientific merits.
The applicant compared SSMA/phos-phonate (Hwa) alone, SSMA/zinc, and phos-phonate/zinc, with his three-component system, and achieved results that the Board held showed “superior performance.” These results are sufficient in themselves to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed.Cir. 1984).
Turning to the rejection on the breadth of the claim language, the limitations in the claims appear to be reasonably commensurate with the disclosure. Although I do not agree with the applicant that it is incumbent on the Commissioner to offer “technical evidence”, applicant’s specific examples are illustrative of the limitations described in the specification, and are not in themselves further limitations. In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1017, 194 USPQ 187, 195 (CCPA 1977); In re Goffe, 542 F.2d 564, 567, 191 USPQ 429, 431 (CCPA 1976).