Court Opinion

ID: 9450723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:56:04.141206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:25.846576
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Judge
(dissenting).
My disagreement with the majority begins with a fundamental difference of opinion as to what the invention is which is covered by the appealed claims. Both claims are directed to a new composition of matter which is fully disclosed in the specification. Yet, because an aspect of the asserted utility of the product mentioned in the specification relates to the “highly useful pharmacological properties” of this composition, the majority, apparently because no method of administration, dosages, etc. are given in the specification, sanctions a double standard under section 112 for the disclosure of utility in such cases. A chemist very probably invented the claimed composition of matter, and knowing some of its properties he could, as was here done, suggest certain uses for it. What possible public benefit is served if such a person assumes the perogative of the trained physician and specifies dosages, methods of administration, etc.? Yet just such a speculative statement by one who may appear as the inventor apparently would be an acceptable statement of utility despite his total lack of professional qualifications to make it.
The basic problem posed by this appeal is an old one. Its resolution requires us to determine whether, despite the omission of such detailed information in the specification as how to use the disclosed composition, it contains enough to disclose the properties of the claimed compound to a person of ordinary skill in the art. While I agree with the majority that there is no record evidence to indicate that one skilled in the art would be able to use the claimed composition of matter as a pharmaceutical without further experimentation, it is my position that 35 U.S.C. § 112, upon which the appealed rejection is based, does not require such “evidence.”
Thus, resolution of the issue here turns on the interpretation of the language of section 112 concerning the “how to use” requirement applicable to the claimed composition of matter when used in the pharmaceutical field. The majority finds that the disclosure is insufficient in that it does not include a disclosure of how to administer the compound as a pharmaceutical, the dosages, or its physiological effects. There is no question here of novelty or of unobviousness of the claimed compound. The sole question is how extensive a disclosure is required of an applicant under section 112.
The board’s decision and the majority opinion clearly establish a double standard of disclosure under section 112. Thus if we attempt to apply the general principles of the majority opinion here to the invention of a hammer in the mechanical field, it would require the patent application for the hammer to describe its use, even to the extent of telling right and left handed users how to use it, i. e., grip the handle in the right hand if right-handed or in the left hand if left-handed. Likewise the various weights of hammers would have to be related to their proposed uses, i. e., do not use a light tack hammer to drive a spike or use a heavy maul to drive a finishing nail. Such an example illustrates the illogic in the majority position.
*599Another example of this same fallacy is seen if the logic of the majority opinion is applied to a chemical compound disclosed, for example, as a paint and varnish solvent. No question would arise as to the sufficiency of such a disclosure under 35 U.S.C. § 112. If, however, as has been found to be the case with such a compound as dimethyl sulf-oxide (DMSO), it is later found to possess some possible pharmaceutical properties, is the public interest served by refusing a patent on the composition because the compound also has pharmacological properties and dosages, etc. are not stated? In other words, it seems to me to be at variance with the underlying concept of the patent law to insist, as is here done by the majority, that 35 U.S.C. § 112 in its so-called “how to use” provisions requires a different standard of disclosure in the case of chemical compositions which may have pharmacological properties.
Such considerations show up what seems to me to be the basic fallacy in the majority opinion, i. e., confusing the invention claimed with the uses asserted for that invention. The claimed invention before us is a new chemical compound; in the language of the patent statute, a new composition of matter. Conceivably it may have various uses, one of which is a pharmacological use. The narrow construction which the Patent Office and the majority place on section 112 when related to such an invention seems to me to defeat the public purpose of the patent laws, i. e., to secure as rapidly as possible the disclosures of new inventions and the dissemination of known information concerning them.
I think the patent law, both in logic and in spirit, demands that the applicant disclose information relevant to the claimed invention. Thus, I see nothing inherently wrong in the type of disclosure before us which says in effect “It appears highly probable that our new chemical compound will be found useful as a pharmaceutical.” It is entirely possible that such a compound may find other uses as well. While such a disclosure may well be an “invitation to experiment,” is not one of the real benefits which the public receives from the issuance of patents?
The “invitation to experiment,” here condemned by the Patent Office, is, I am convinced, one of the great public benefits of the patent system. No invention ever is complete or perfect. The history of science and technology is the history of slow and painful experimentation and development, with each forward step being based on previous knowledge. The patent system was conceived, it seems to me, to encourage such halting, experimental steps. To deny an applicant, despite the fact (or more accurately, here because of the fact) that he has disclosed everything he knows about his invention, seems manifestly unjust and in complete disharmony with the whole concept of our patent system.
I think we should resolve the issues here on the basis of the simple consideration of what the specification discloses to persons of ordinary skill in the art to which it pertains. To chemists, does it disclose the compound? To medical researchers, does the application teach enough of the properties of the claimed compound that those of ordinary skill in the medical sciences can reasonably be expected to know how to use it? I do not think we should dispose of this kind of a case on the basis of the judicial guesswork which underlies the majority opinion. Instead, I think we should take judicial notice of the fact that the fields of medicine and pharmacology are highly sophisticated areas which require a high level of intelligence and education on the part of those working in these areas. Accepting this fact, it does not seem to me that it would be beyond the expected skill of these working in these arts to place a drop of the claimed chemical compound on a culture of tuberculines and to note its effect. Similarly, it does not seem to me to be beyond the range of such skills to know, for example, that a crystalline material should be put into solution before intravenous or parenteral application is attempted. It seems to me *600also that knowing the chemical structure and chemical characteristics of the claimed compound, as taught in the specification, -one of ordinary skill in these fields should be expected to know how it can and should be administered.
It is my deeply-held conviction that we should take this opportunity to reject, once and for all,- the anomalous interpretation of section 112 which holds that the entire phrase — “the manner and process of making and using” — applies to each statutory class of invention. How, for example, can one disclose satisfactorily the “process” of “making” a process ? Rather, it seems to me, the interpretation of the language of section 112 should be one of reason. As we stated in In re Hitchings, 342 F.2d 80, 52 CCPA-:
“ * * * All the statute requires is that the disclosure be one which will ‘enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected,’ to make and use the invention. Thus, where-the manner of using a claimed compound is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the particular art, even though the specification is utterly barren of any express teaching of how to use, this court has found compliance with section 112. In re Johnson, 282 F.2d 370, 48 CCPA 733.”
Clearly as to the claimed chemical compound appellants here have satisfied such a requirement. They have not claimed a method of treating a disease. Why therefore should they be required to prescribe dosages, methods of administration, etc. on the theory that their invention resides in the use of rather than in; the compound itself?
I would reverse the decision below.