Court Opinion

ID: 9448052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:21:56.397475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:16.488552
License: Public Domain

MARTIN, Judge
(concurring).
I am of the opinion that the decision of the board should be affirmed for the following reason:
It appears from the prior art that the appealed claims recite only obvious esterification processes. I do not believe the mere selection of the- particular compounds to be reacted imparts patentability to these process claims any more than the selection of particular parts of a machine would render an obvious process for making the machine patentable.
Although I am aware that machines differ from chemical compounds in that the individual parts of a machine retain their identity and merely interact or cooperate in producing some desired result while chemical reactants lose their identity in reacting to produce a new substance, I do not believe this difference is significant in deciding the issue before us. The prior art in this instance indicates to me that the chemist of ordinary skill would know that appellant’s chemical reactants would react as stated and claimed.