Court Opinion

ID: 9453682
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:20:48.06415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:45.690517
License: Public Domain

WORLEY, Chief Judge
(dissenting), with whom KIRKPATRICK, Judge, joins.
In view of the disclosure of McIntosh that the density of various cellulosie materials can be at least partially increased by treating them with sulfuric acid alone prior to heating to form charcoal, I agree with the board that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to subject bagasse, a cellulosie raw material known to be useful in the manufacture of charcoal, to a similar acid pretreatment to increase its density before full carbonization.
*805The majority seems to find that it is “essential to the McIntosh process to use heat and pressure in addition to the acid treatment to form a dense structure before carbonization takes place.” The majority is in error. It is true that, in a preferred embodiment, McIntosh does apply heat and pressure to a web of cellulose by means of rollers prior to driving off “all its volatile constituents” in the full carbonization step. However, McIntosh clearly contemplates simply utilizing “scraps and otherwise waste pieces of parchmentized or vulcanized fiber” as a feed material for his car-bonization retort, thus producing “relatively pure granular carbon” without apparent necessity of the scraps or waste being “wound upon a heated roller while subjected to heavy pressure.” It is, of course, the disclosure of McIntosh as a whole with which we are concerned, not just the specific examples or preferred embodiments. In re Boe, 53 CCPA 1079, 355 F.2d 961; In re Chapman, 53 CCPA 978, 357 F.2d 418.
In any event, I do not see that appellant’s claims necessarily exclude application of heat and pressure1 to attain densification of the bagasse prior to the full carbonization step. It seems to me the majority is deliberately reading limitations into appellant’s claims that plainly are not there. That it should not do. In re Fields, 50 CCPA 709, 304 F.2d 691; In re Lundberg, 44 CCPA 909, 244 F.2d 543; In re Kebrich, 40 CCPA 780, 201 F.2d 951.
Unlike the majority here, the examiner and board also properly found the Othmer affidavit to be entitled to little weight. Granted the qualifications of affiant, all that he states in the portions of his affidavit quoted by the majority is, at best, that treatment of bagasse with sulfuric acid prior to carbonization is new.2 The affidavit, like appellant’s brief, fails to controvert — indeed, ignores — the salient teaching of McIntosh, quoted by the majority, which was relied on below in determining the obviousness of appellant’s process. In my view, the affidavit is only a statement of opinion not binding on this court, and provides no factual basis for concluding that the invention would be unobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Carey, 55 CCPA-, 392 F.2d 646. 157 USPQ 376; In re Austin, 55 CCPA -, 390 F.2d 721; In re Lindell, 55 CCPA-, 385 F.2d 453; In re Weber, 52 CCPA 1015, 341 F.2d 143; In re Umbricht, 52 CCPA 1586, 347 F.2d 882; In re Chilow-sky, 50 CCPA 806, 306 F.2d 908.
I would affirm.

. As tlie solicitor points out, the term “without briquetting” in appellant’s claims does not suffice to exclude applying heat and/or pressure, as briquetting may occur without application of either heat or pressure. See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1961)- under “briquette.”

. In that regard, for further informative historical background of the steps involved and materials used in the manufacture of activated charcoal from various cellulosic materials, including bagas-se, see Kirk-Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. 2, pp. 886— 888 (1948)..