Court Opinion

ID: 9479865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:30:49.466171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:19.482615
License: Public Domain

ARCHER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The majority reverses the Board’s decision solely because in its view prima facie *1571obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (1982 & Supp. IV) can never be established when the specific problem and use described by the inventor are not addressed or suggested in the prior art.1 In this case, the prior art clearly would have motivated or taught the skilled artisan to produce the composition and method claimed by Dillon and, due to the absence of evidence showing non-obviousness, the Board determined, correctly in my view, that Dillon’s invention was not patentable. I therefore dissent.
Preliminarily, I disagree with the way that the majority has framed the issue presented in this appeal. The majority opinion states that “[t]he threshhold question is whether, under such circumstances, a prima facie case of unpatentability for obviousness is deemed made.” Maj. at 1557. As this court has made clear, “[t]he concept of prima facie obviousness in ex parte patent examination is but a procedural mechanism to allocate in an orderly way the burdens of going forward and of persuasion as between the examiner and the applicant.” In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed.Cir.1984). This being so, once the full eviden-tiary record is established, as it is before the Board and on appeal to this court, the presumptions associated with the intermediate procedural burdens drop from the case, and the decisionmaker must focus solely upon the ultimate question to be decided. Id. at 1472-73, 223 USPQ at 788; In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976); cf. United States Postal Serv. Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714-17, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 1481-83, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983) (in discrimination cases under Title VII the prima facie case method is a procedural device for the orderly production of evidence, but once the evidentiary record is established it is error to focus solely “on the question of prima facie case rather than directly on the question of discrimination.”). Accordingly, the issue here is not whether a prima facie case was made, but rather whether Dillon’s claimed composition and method would have been obvious on the record as a whole.
The facts underlying this appeal are set forth in the majority’s opinion and will not be repeated here. The claimed composition and method are suggested by the prior art, albeit for a reason different from that which Dillon has disclosed.2 Under the rationale identified by the examiner and affirmed by the Board, the prior art taught adding tetra-orthoesters to hydrocarbon fuels for the purpose of scavenging water prior to combustion, whereas Dillon was concerned with reducing the amount of particulate emissions produced by the combustion of the same fuels.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 it is the claimed composition which must be patentable, not the motivation or subjective idea upon which that composition is based. Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524, 1527-28, 220 USPQ 1021, 1024 (Fed.Cir.1984). Accordingly, an additional or different reason for doing what the prior art suggests should be done does not prevent a conclusion that a claimed invention would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1304, 190 USPQ 425, 427-28 (CCPA 1976) (“Appellants further allege that the effect of water addition which they disclose (to lengthen the service life of the catalyst) is different from the effect of water addition disclosed in Yasui et al. Nevertheless, Yasui et al. provide ample motivation to add water in order to increase product yields, and we do not view *1572the rejection as deficient merely because the appellants allege a different advantage resulting from the addition of water. ... [I]t is sufficient here that Yasui et al. clearly suggests doing what appellants have done, viz., adding water.” (emphasis added)); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972) (“The fact that appellant uses sugar for a different purpose does not alter the conclusion that its use in a prior art composition would be prima facie obvious from the purpose disclosed in the references.” (emphasis added))3; see also In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333, 216 USPQ 1038, 1040 (Fed.Cir.1983) (“[I]t would have been obvious to those skilled in the art to use them together when a differential in wearing away quality was desired, even though appellant’s particular purpose was different from that of [the prior art].” (emphasis added)); In re Graf, 343 F.2d 774, 777, 145 USPQ 197, 199 (CCPA 1965) (“Obviousness is not to be determined on the basis of purpose alone.”).
Obviousness is determined not on the basis of argument, but on evidence produced in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed.Cir.1984). Hence, when the examiner has shown that the prior art suggests the claimed invention for a particular purpose, the applicant cannot upset that showing merely by asserting, without proof, that the purpose behind or the properties of the claimed invention are different. Instead, it is necessary for the applicant to demonstrate by evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected novel or greatly enhanced results, commercial success, long felt need, etc., that the claimed invention would not have been obvious to the skilled artisan. In In re Lintner the court stated:
The fact that appellant uses sugar for a different purpose does not alter the conclusion that its use in a prior art composition would be prima facie obvious from the purpose disclosed in the references.
Differences between a patent applicant’s and the prior art’s motivation for adding an element to a composition may be reflected in the composition ultimately produced. A claimed composition may possess unexpectedly superior properties or advantages as compared to prior art compositions. In this way, the conclusion of prima facie obviousness may be rebutted and the claimed subject matter ultimately held to be legally nonob-vious.
458 F.2d at 1016, 173 USPQ at 562 (CCPA 1972) (emphasis added). See also 2 D. Chi-sum, Patents, § 5.04[6] at 5-325 (1989) (“The fact that the prior art ‘suggests’ the modification for a different purpose is irrelevant to the issue of prima facie obviousness though it is relevant to rebuttal of prima facie obviousness.”).
In addition, the specific problem facing the applicant need not be recognized in all cases by the prior art before obviousness may be established.4 In In re Gershon, *1573372 F.2d 535, 152 USPQ 602 (CCPA 1967), the court stated:
Although the cited prior art does fail to disclose or suggest either the existence of appellants’ problem or its cause, we cannot agree that the art does not teach or suggest a solution to the problem. The cited art, especially the Gershon article, unquestionably teaches the superiority of “buffered acidic fluoride solutions” in effectively reducing dental enamel solubility in vitro. We think that one of ordinary skill in the dentifrice art would thus be persuaded to use buffered acidic fluoride dentifrices for the purpose of reducing dental enamel solubility in vivo. Such obvious use of buffered dentifrices would inherently provide a solution to appellants’ problem, even though an adequate theoretical explanation of the reason why incorporation of buffering agents in acidic fluoride dentifrices achieves superior RES values is not found in the cited art. We think it is sufficient that the prior art clearly suggests doing what the applicants have done, although an underlying explanation of exactly why this should be done, other than to obtain the expected superior beneficial results, is not taught or suggested in the cited references.[5]
Id. at 538-39, 152 USPQ at 605 (emphasis in original). In the present case, the use of tetra-orthoesters as water scavengers in fuel mixtures as suggested by Sweeney and Elliott would have inherently solved Dillon’s problem concerning particulate emissions.
Dillon’s specification sets forth several examples that must be considered in making the obviousness determination. These examples are especially pertinent here because they provide a comparison between a composition disclosed by the Sweeney reference alone (although Dillon apparently was not aware of this reference, having originally claimed that same composition) and the composition encompassed by Dillon’s claims and thus could provide evidence showing the nonobviousness of Dillon’s invention. In Examples III through XII, trimethyl-orthoacetate (an orthoester of the formula taught by Sweeney) was shown to reduce the amount of particulate emissions from # 2 diesel fuel by 14.61, 10.26, 29.90, 18.57, 12.01, 18.09, 11.30, (0), 27, and 27 percent, respectively. In Examples XIII through XVIII, tetra-methyl-or-thocarbonate (a claimed tetra-orthoester) reduced particulate emissions by only 6.7, 7.9, 10.8, 16.6, 12.8, and 10.3 percent, respectively. This evidence, as the Board found, does not tend to prove the nonob-viousness of the claimed invention. It, instead, shows only that a composition within Sweeney’s disclosure tends to exhibit an even greater particulate-reducing ability than does the composition Dillon claims.
Accordingly, in light of the suggestion in the art to employ tetra-orthoesters as water scavengers in fuel mixtures and the absence of any evidence of nonobviousness, the Board’s holding that Dillon’s composition and method6 claims are unpatentable is correct and should be affirmed.
The cases regarding the obviousness of chemical compounds cited by the majority do not require a contrary result. The majority erroneously states that “a prima facie case of obviousness is not deemed made unless both (1) the new compound or composition is structurally similar to the reference compound or composition and (2) *1574there is some suggestion or expectation in the prior art that the new compound or composition will have the same or similar utility as discovered by the applicant,” citing, among others, In re Grabiak, 769 F.2d 729, 731, 226 USPQ 870, 871 (Fed.Cir.1985); In re Rosselet, 347 F.2d 847, 850, 146 USPQ 183, 185 (CCPA 1965); In re Chupp, 816 F.2d 643, 645-46, 2 USPQ2d 1437, 1439 (Fed.Cir.1987); In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 314, 203 USPQ 245, 254-55 (CCPA 1979); and In re Swan Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 641, 199 USPQ 137, 139 (CCPA 1978). See Maj. at 1560. These cases, however, do not support the second prong of the stated test. In Grabiak the court reversed the Board’s decision because it found lacking a sufficient structural similarity between the known and claimed compounds upon which to support the examiner’s rejection. There was no holding regarding the utility of the claimed and referenced compounds. While in Rosselet, Payne, and Swan Wood the claimed and known compounds were of similar utility, this fact served only to confirm the inference of fact that the claimed compound would have been obvious based on its structural likeness to a useful prior art compound. See Chupp, 816 F.2d at 646, 2 USPQ2d at 1439; In re Mills, 281 F.2d 218, 223, 126 USPQ 513, 517 (CCPA 1960). The similarity in utility between the two compounds was not a teaching taken from the prior art. Likewise, in Chupp, the fact that the claimed and prior art compounds were both herbicides cannot be transformed into a requirement that in all cases the examiner can only base his obviousness determinations on compounds having the same or similar utility as that claimed by the applicant.
In In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963), a most often cited chemical obviousness case, the court reversed the rejection of the applicant’s claims because the Board had failed to consider evidence that the claimed compounds exhibited unexpected advantageous properties not possessed by the related compounds of the prior art. Id. at 391, 137 USPQ at 51. Indeed, such evidence, when of record, must always be considered by the examiner. The Papesch holding, however, does not mean that obviousness cannot be predicated on the structural likeness of the claimed invention to known useful compounds.
The additional cases cited by the majority are consistent with Papesch. In In re Albrecht, 514 F.2d 1385, 185 USPQ 590 (CCPA 1975), the CCPA held that a prima facie case of structural obviousness had been established notwithstanding that the claimed novel compound was disclosed for a totally different utility as compared to the referenced compound (local anesthetic versus antiviral agent).7 In this case, the claimed compounds were ultimately held to be nonobvious, but only after the examiner’s obviousness rejection was rebutted by evidence that the novel compounds actually possessed unexpected properties not exhibited by those disclosed in the cited reference.
In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed.Cir.1988); In re Lalu, 747 F.2d 703, 223 USPQ 1257 (Fed.Cir.1984); In re Grabiak, 769 F.2d 729, 226 USPQ 870 (Fed.Cir.1985); In re Naber, 494 F.2d 1405, 181 USPQ 639 (CCPA 1974); In re Stemniski, 444 F.2d 581, 170 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1971); In re Ruschig, 343 F.2d 965, 145 USPQ 274 (CCPA 1965); In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964); In re Elpern, 326 F.2d 762, 140 USPQ 224 (CCPA 1964); and In re Mills, 281 F.2d 218, 126 USPQ 513 (CCPA 1960), do not hold otherwise. Although in each of these cases the court reversed the Board’s decision that the claimed inventions would have been obvious, it did so because there was no suggestion in the art whatsoever to produce the claimed invention. Not one of these cases stands for the proposition advanced by the majority that a validly suggested reason for producing the claimed *1575invention is insufficient for the purposes of section 103 because it does not address the problem of the inventor or because the prior art does not disclose or predict the alleged but unproven benefits of the claimed invention.8
In sum, the myriad of chemical obviousness cases cited by the majority stand only for the unremarkable proposition that a novel compound may be unpatentable when it is shown to be structurally similar to another known and useful compound. In such a case, the inference of obviousness may be overcome by a showing by the applicant that the claimed compound actually “possesses unobvious or unexpected beneficial properties not actually possessed by the prior art [structurally similar compound].” In re Mills, 281 F.2d at 222, 126 USPQ at 516 (partial emphasis added). These cases do not, however, require or suggest, as the majority holds, that chemical obviousness can only be predicated on prior art compounds which have the same or similar utility as the claimed compound. See In re Albrecht, 514 F.2d at 1388, 185 USPQ at 593.
Lastly, the majority cites the decision of this court in In re Wright, 848 F.2d 1216, 6 USPQ2d 1959 (Fed.Cir.1988), in support of its decision. While Wright9 supports the result the majority reaches in this case, I do not find comfort in this fact because Wright, in my view, is in direct conflict with our precedent.10 As shown ante, that precedent does not make the subjective motivation or purpose disclosed by the inventor for producing the claimed invention an overriding factor in determining whether obviousness can be established from the teachings of the prior art. In Wright, the court held that although the prior art suggested the claimed invention for one purpose, because it did not suggest the invention for Wright’s purpose or as a solution to the problem confronting him, it did not establish prima facie obviousness of the claimed invention. Such a holding is based solely on subjective criteria and is wholly at odds with the objective evidence-based analysis required by 35 U.S.C. § 103 and with the decisions of the CCPA and this court which disregard the mere articulation of the purpose or motivation behind the invention insofar as obviousness is concerned.
Consequently, because a panel of this court is without power to overrule the bind*1576ing precedent of this court and its predecessors, the decision in Wright does not control this appeal and merits no following. It should be limited to its facts if not forthrightly overruled.
I would affirm the Board’s decision.

. The majority states: “There is no objective teaching in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to make the claimed combinations in order to solve the problem that was confronting Dillon. There is no reasonable basis in the prior art for expecting that Dillon’s new compositions would have the particulate-reducing properties that she discovered.” Maj. at 1568 (emphasis added).

. Dillon challenges the combination of the Sweeney and Elliott patents arguing that because Elliott deals with the dewatering of hydraulic fluids rather than hydrocarbon fuel, its teachings are related to a nonanalogous art area. Dillon’s argument is unavailing here because Elliott’s teachings are related to solving a problem Sweeney has indicated is pertinent to the hydrocarbon fuel art. See In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed.Cir.1986); cf. In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1303-04, 190 USPQ 425, 427 (CCPA 1976).

. The majority attempts to avoid the holding of Lintner by characterizing its facts as being accommodated by Solder Removal Co. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 582 F.2d 628, 635, 199 USPQ 129, 135 (CCPA 1978), which required a weighing and balancing of all the facts, including the significance of the problem suggested by the prior art versus the inventor's solution to another problem ("where the results may be so unexpected as to support a conclusion of nonobviousness”) in making the ultimate determination with respect to obviousness. Maj. at 1565-66. Kronig, Lintner, and Heck are each consistent with the weighing or balancing approach articulated in Solder Removal. While appearing to adopt that approach by citing and quoting from Solder Removal, the majority instead holds that the only suggestion or motivation from the prior art which can be sufficient to establish even a prima facie case of obviousness is that which Dillon says was instrumental to her discovery of the claimed invention. See quote from majority opinion in footnote 1, supra.

. The majority notes that the discovery of the source of a problem plaguing the prior art is a part of the "subject matter as a whole” to be considered in determining obviousness, citing In re Sponnoble, 405 F.2d 578, 585, 160 USPQ 237, 243 (CCPA 1969). Maj. at 1562. See also Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 67-68, 43 S.Ct. 322, 329-30, 67 L.Ed. 523 (1923). That doctrine has no application in this case, however, where Dillon has not indicated that she has discovered the source of the particulate emission problem, thereby making its solution simple. See 2 D. Chisum, Patents, § 5.04[7] at 5-353 (1989) ("The Eibel doctrine applies only where the inventor has dis*1573covered the source of a recognized problem.” (emphasis in original)).

. The majority points to In re Shaffer, 229 F.2d 476, 480, 108 USPQ 326, 329 (CCPA 1956), to suggest that the problem confronting the inventor must be addressed by the prior art in order for obviousness to be established. Maj. at 1563. Shaffer, however, is easily distinguished from this case. In Shaffer, the court found that the prior art did not suggest the equivalency between the amplifiers of the primary and secondary references. Id. at 479, 108 USPQ at 328-29. Accordingly, there was no suggestion to replace the amplifier of the primary reference with that of the secondary art. In this case, however, it is beyond dispute that Elliott teaches the equivalency between tri- and tetra-orthoesters as water scavengers.

. Dillon’s method claims consist solely of the process of combusting the fuel mixture of her composition claims. Since the utility of Sweeney mixtures is as a fuel, combustion of the Sweeney/Elliott mixture would also have been obvious to the skilled artisan.

. This flatly contradicts the majority’s holding that in order to establish "a prima facie case of obviousness[,] there must be some reason, arising in the prior art, to expect that the claimed compounds or compositions will have the properties found by the applicant.” Maj. at 1565. The prior art relied upon in Albrecht clearly gave no such an expectation, yet the court expressly indicated that obviousness, at that stage of the prosecution, had been established.

. In Lalu, Naber, Stemniski and Ruschig, the court indicated that structural obviousness could not be established where the prior art disclosed no utility whatsoever (or other than as an intermediate in a chemical process) for the referenced compound. These holdings do not support the majority’s holding that the prior art must show the same or similar utility as does the applicant for the claimed invention in order to establish obviousness. On the contrary, the lack of disclosed utility in these cases may be likened to the lack of any reason or suggestion to combine various prior art teachings in a typical "reason to combine” case. In a "reason to combine" case, there must be “some” teaching or suggestion to combine the prior art. See Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed.Cir.1988). Likewise, in structural obviousness cases, “some" utility for the referenced compound is sufficient to infer obviousness. In re Albrecht, 514 F.2d at 1388.

. Wright has been cited by this court in Diversitech Corp. v. Century Steps, Inc., 850 F.2d 675, 679, 7 USPQ2d 1315, 1318 (Fed.Cir.1988), and In re Newell, 891 F.2d 899, 902 (Fed.Cir.1989). These cases are distinguishable from this one because of either the existence of considerable objective evidence of nonobviousness or the lack of any suggestion In the prior art for the claimed invention. Thus, Wright’s preclusion of obviousness where the inventor’s problem and properties were not addressed or disclosed by the prior art was not in issue.

.The majority states that I have "misper-ceiv[ed] the reasoning in Wright" and would overrule some 25, or more, prior holdings of this and our predecessor court. Slip op. at 30 n. 9. Contrary to the majority’s view, however, it is the reasoning in Wright which represents the departure from our prior jurisprudence. See Adelman, Patent Law Perspectives, § 2.6[1], 2-406.2 (1989) (“In In re Wright [] the Federal Circuit wrongly failed to properly balance expected and unexpected properties in connection with a mechanical invention.”); Rollins, “PTO Practice: Was Wright Wrong?", 71 J.Pat. & Tm. Off.Soc. 39 (1989) (Wright "diverges from prior precedent in a manner which, if intentional, represents a rather substantial change in the law.”; Kayton, Patent Practice, 5-36 (4th ed. 1989) ("The highwater mark in the law of what is and is not prima facie obvious is In re Wright....”); Brantley, Patent Law Handbook, 231-35 (1989-90) (Wright provides a "new approach) ] to arguments attempting to rebut a rejection under section 103.’’).