Court Opinion

ID: 9452102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:30:16.938661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:04.016048
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Judge
(concurring), with whom MARTIN, Judge, joins.
Absent the affidavits I would give full credence to the statements in the reference relied on by the Patent Office. These statements are as follows:
Antifungal Activity of Some Synthetic Acetylenic Compounds
KHCHIRO TANAKA, ISSEI IWAI, YAKUTARO OKAJIMA, and TAKUO EONOTSUNE

Takamine Laboratory, Sankyo Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan

Capillin, l-phenyl-l-oxo-liexa-2, 4-diyne, which was isolated in our laboratory a few years ago from the essential oil of Artemisia capillaris Thurib., has been reported to have high antifungal activity.1
Using procedures of synthesis described elsewhere,2,3 we have recently prepared compounds related to capillin having the following general formulae:

In the present paper we wish to report some results of our investigations on the antimicrobial activity of these compounds.
METHODS
The tests were performed by the agar streak dilution- technique using three fungi and two bacteria as test microorganisms.
Each compound, dissolved first in acetone in adequate concentration, was diluted with the culture medium to the final concentration. In all cases the final concentration of acetone was less than 0.5 per cent.
The culture conditions for the test microorganisms are shown in table I.
The antimicrobial activity of each compound was expressed by the minimal concentration required for complete inhibition of the test organism after the incubation period.

*869

The above statements appear to teach that compounds related to capillin, which has been reported to have high anti-fungal activity, were tested for antimicrobial activity and the “Minimal Concentrations * * * Required for Complete Inhibition of 4 Species of Microorganisms” is greater than 50 and 25 gg./ml. respectively for the two compounds identified above concerning the P. oryzae species. [Emphasis added.]
However, what appears to be clearly taught by the reference must be qualified according to appellant’s affidavits. The first affidavit states in the singularly important part that “the notation ‘ > 50’ ” means “according to convention universally used in the reporting of such results that the compound * * * -was found to be inactive at all such concentrations,” and this is “normal convention * * * meaning no activity when tested *870in concentrations up to and including 50 M-g./ml.” [Emphasis added.]
The second affidavit states the greater than symbol means “the compounds were not active, i. e., did not give complete inhibition, at the highest concentration tested.” I do not find this statement to be contrary to the statements of the reference.
If this was all the affidavits stated, it is at once apparent that they support the position of the Patent Office. However, there is a sentence in the second affidavit which states, the greater than symbol “does not mean or imply that the compounds in question were partially active at the highest concentration tested.” [Emphasis added.]
It is clear that the above sentence is the strength upon which appellant’s case stands or falls. It seems to me that appellant has taken the position by introducing the affidavit that the reference teaches no inhibition against any of the test organisms set forth where the greater than symbol is employed.
We are here dealing with a question of fact as to what the above symbol conveys to one of ordinary skill in the art. While appellant has offered only affidavit proof to establish this very important fact, vital to appellant’s case, I find from the record that the Patent Office has continuously avoided consideration of the fact averred in the affidavit. Where an applicant fails to respond to a fact averred by the Patent Office, we have accepted that fact as established in .our determination under section 103. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, - C.C.P.A. -; In re Diamond, 360 F.2d 214, - C.C.P.A. -.
Here I find from the facts of record the reference teaches one of ordinary skill that there is no inhibition where-ever the greater than symbol is used. I must conclude that the claimed processes and compositions are non-obvious within the meaning of section 103. For the above reasons I would reverse the decision of the board.