Court Opinion

ID: 9447880
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:46:36.387407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:13.346314
License: Public Domain

WORLEY, Chief Judge, with whom WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK, Judge, joins
(dissenting).
In my opinion the disclosure of the method of using the compound claimed in the instant application is insufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The statement relied on by the majority that the compound “is a useful intermediate in the prepax-ation of dyestuffs” is not sufficient unless a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand without further explanation how to use the compound successfully for that purpose.
No doubt it is true, as stated by the majority, that it is generally understood in the art how certain aromatic amines with amino groups may be used in dye making, but there is nothing of record to Show that all of them are used in the !same manner. Accordingly, the statement that a compound is an aromatic amine with an amino group would not necessarily indicate any particular process by which it could be used in dye making.
Moreover, appellant’s application does not identify the claimed compound as an aromatic amine with an amino group. The majority notes that the Woodward article states that iron biseyclopentadienyl demonstrates typically aromatic properties, and concludes that this teaching would lead one skilled in the art to suppose that appellant’s compound, which is similar in some respects to that discussed by Woodward would have similar properties, and that one such similar property would be suitability for use in making dyes by the method previously employed in connection with aromatic amines.
While it is conceivable that one skilled in the art might make the suggested inference and might then be able to adapt some known process to use with the claimed compound, the matter is, at best, highly speculative. Moreover, I question whether it can properly be assumed that all skilled persons were or are familiar with the contents of the Woodward article, which is not mentioned in appellant’s application, and I have grave doubts whether an application disclosure which is dependent upon knowledge of some particular publication which is not a standard reference text and is not identified in the application constitutes a compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112.
It is significant that appellant has not, even now, undertaken to point out any specific process by which the claimed compound can be used in dye making. Even assuming the general procedure to be suggested by analogy to prior processes using amino compounds, the particular process, materials, and proportions to be used are left to speculation and experiment. Such a disclosure does not, in my opinion, satisfy the statutory requirement. I would affirm.