Court Opinion

ID: 9452566
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:44:45.56635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:16.314965
License: Public Domain

ALMOND, Judge, with whom WORLEY, C. J., joins
(dissenting).
I would affirm the decision of the board for the sound reasons stated in its opinion:
The claims stand rejected as unpatentable over Iler in view of Kirk. Iler discloses substantially the same overall method of preparing the silica organosol employing appellants’ preferred alcohols but in the absence of a hydrogen bonding donor. However, use of such donor (including appellants’ preferred dimethylformamide) to stabilize silica organosols is shown by Kirk. * * * The Examiner held that it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to use the hydrogen bonding donors of Kirk in the process of Iler for their known purpose [stabilization of silica sols].
It is our conclusion, after full consideration of appellants’ argument, that this rejection is proper and should be sustained. It appears to us that appellants are merely employing the hydrogen bonding donor of Kirk for its known function. * * *
* * * our view is that the problem, i. e., precipitation [of silica gel], *1023would in any case become apparent on attempts to esterify higher concentrations of the [Iler] silica sol and one would then logically turn to teachings such as Kirk’s for stabilization of the silica sol.
* * * in our view of the teachings of the prior art, the inclusion of Kirk’s hydrogen bonding donor in preparing the Iler silica organosol is obvious regardless of the concentration of the silica sol to be converted by dehydration and partial esterification.
While the majority attemps to distinguish between silicic acids sols, which Kirk stabilizes with hydrogen bonding donors, and silica sols, which appellants stabilize with the same agents, this distinction appears rather tenuous in light of the well-known fact that silica is merely the anhydrous form of silicic acids, which dissociate readily into silica and water. Kirk, who presumably is one of ordinary skill in this-art, uses the terms “silicic acid sols” and “silica sols” interchangeably in his patent. Also, while the majority apparently views the silica sols of Iler and appellants as consisting of pure anhydrous silica, Si02, this hardly accounts for the presence of hydrogen in the silanol (SiOH) groups on the surface of the “silica” particles, which are allegedly “dissimilar” to hydrated silica.
Kirk discloses about sixty hydrogen bonding donors as stabilizers for his silicic acid sols, of which eleven possess appellants’ requisite minimum dipole moment of 3.0 Debye units. It is important to note that appellants do not argue that any of these agents are inoperable as stabilizers of Kirk’s hydrated silica sols. Such an argument would have required appellants to meet the heavy burden of proof demanded of one who would establish inoperability and consequent invalidity of a patent cited as a reference against him. Application of Jacobs, 318 F.2d 743, 50 CCPA 1316.
Yet appellants urge that about fifty of the sixty donors of Kirk “are completely useless and inactive” as stabilizers of their anhydrous silica sols, and those of Iler. If the sixty hydrogen bonding agents of Kirk are all operable stabilizers of hydrated silica sols, as we must presume in the absence of clear and convincing proof to the contrary, then it would be reasonable to expect substantially all of these sixty donors-to be operable stabilizers of the anhydrous silica sols of appellants and Iler. In other words, one would naturally expect that donors having dipole moments greater than, less than, and equal to 3.0 Debye units would be operative stabilizers of silica sols of both the hydrated and anhydrous types.
In seeking to overcome the adverse effect of this natural inference or presumption, appellants have demonstrated, at most, that a homologue of one hydrogen bonding agent of Kirk (not one which is disclosed in Kirk’s twelve working examples) is inoperative as a stabilizer of anhydrous silica sols. I am unwilling to accept this proof as clear and convincing evidence that about fifty of Kirk’s sixty donors “are completely useless and inactive” as stabilizers of anhydrous silica sols. For all we know, this one agent, which is not even listed by Kirk, may be only an isolated example of a hydrogen bonding agent that stabilizes neither the hydrated silica sols of Kirk nor the anhydrous silica sols of Iler and appellants. If in fact this agent provides merely an isolated instance of inoperativeness, it would be unreasonable to regard it as conclusive proof that hydrogen bonding agents having dipole moments of less than 3.0 Debye units are, as a class, inoperable as stabilizers of either hydrated or anhydrous silica sols. Since appellants have failed to demonstrate that a single one of Kirk’s sixty donors is inoperative as a stabilizer of anhydrous silica sols, I would affirm the decision below.