Court Opinion

ID: 9451707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:22:07.16783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:51.242488
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Judge
(dissenting).
The issue here arises under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We are required to evaluate the claimed subject matter as a whole against the prior art references of record.
Three of the four references relied on in the rejection are concerned with soot removal. (Adams, Johnson, and Anderson). As the majority points out, each of these references advocates adding the soot removal composition to the fuel as the operative method of depositing the composition on the soot. Also, two of these references state that soot removers may be “sprayed” onto the soot deposits. Adams alleges that “spraying” is an inferior method without disclosing any compositions which may be sprayed and Anderson’s reference to spraying involves a carefully controlled test to measure the ignition temperature of the soot.
Appellant, after a detailed analysis, summarizes the teachings of these three references as follows:
* * * The Anderson patent discloses a composition which if sprayed is toxic and explosive. The Adams patent presents a composition which if sprayed would be explosive and poisonous. The Johnson patent discloses a composition which if sprayed would be explosive and toxic. * * *
Appellant also alleges that certain drawbacks are present in adding soot removal additives to the fuel as taught by the prior art, particularly the settling out of the additives, the gumming of fuel jets, the inconvenience of adding the compositions to the fuel, and the highly inefficient method of depositing the compositions throughout the burner chamber instead of only on the soot deposits.
*248The refereneees other than Anderson which were relied on by the board are not concerned with soot removal. Barth, as the majority notes, concerns parting agents for mold surfaces and teaches as propellants those disclosed by appellant as being “particularly effective.” Appellant distinguishes the claimed subject matter over any combination of references from the soot removal art and the mold separating agent art as follows:
No single patent of the prior art nor any combination thereof suggests the Appellant’s invention which covers a liquified halogenated propellant and a salt of only copper or lead in a spray container for safe, effective, non-toxic soot removal in oil burning equipment. [Emphasis added.]
In evaluating the teachings of the prior art as of the time prior to appellant’s invention, I am unable to find that the claimed subject matter was obvious under the reasoning of either the Patent Office or the majority. It seems to me there is a ¿fundamental error in the reasoning of the Patent Office and the majority in that both appear to draw the teachings of the invention as a whole from appellant’s disclosure and then to use this as a “check list,” so to speak, from which to pick the salts from one reference and from others the propellants, the container, and the method of application (which appellant admits are individually old in the art) and this is done, it seems to me, without regard to what the references fairly taught the art prior to appellant’s disclosures.
It seems to me, therefore, that the subject matter claimed by appellant has not been fairly evaluated “as a whole” by the majority. Appellant’s invention provides a convenient, safe and highly efficient package for soot removal materials which operates in a manner novel in this art to facilitate the removal of localized soot formations. This invention seems to me to be obvious only by a hindsight selection of individual elements from the prior art. I therefore dissent from the majority’s decision.