Court Opinion

ID: 9452099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:30:16.933266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:04.013629
License: Public Domain

MARTIN, Judge
(concurring).
I agree with the views expressed in Judge SMITH’S concurring opinion. In addition, it is my view that the affidavit only prima facie show that the convention in this art would lead to an interpretation of the Tanaka disclosure as teaching that the compound was tested at 50 ¡xg./ml. and did not give complete inhibition, and also that no information on partial inhibition was conveyed. That *868still leaves in my mind a close question of whether or not the use of the compound at higher, “fungieidally effective,” amounts or the composition of the compound in the usual carriers is obvious. Although it is not clear, the majority appears to view the Tanaka reference as teaching away from the claimed invention (s). However, I resolve the doubt, and it is considerable in the case of the composition claims, in favor of appellant.