APPLICATION OF CARABATEAS, Patent Appeal No. 7476.
| Decision Date | 05 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 7476. |
| Citation | 357 F.2d 998 |
| Parties | Application of Philip M. CARABATEAS. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Laurence & Laurence, Washington, D. C. (Dean Laurence, Herbert I. Sherman, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant.
Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D. C. (J. E. Armore, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents.
Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges.
This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 2 in appellant's patent application1 for "4-aryl-4-(lower acyloxy)-1-(3-aryl-3-hydroxypropyl)-piperidines and their preparation." Appellant has withdrawn appeal of claim 2.
The appealed subject matter is represented by the chemical compound of claim 1:
1. 1 - (3-Hydroxy-3-phenylpropyl) - 4-phenyl-4-propionoxy-piperidine.
That compound has the structural formula
and is useful as an analgesic.
The references are:
Elpern II 2,846,437 August 5, 1958
Elpern I 2,850,500 September 2, 1958
Pohland II 2,904,550 September 15, 1959
Pohland I 2,951,080 August 30, 1960
Cutler et al. 2,962,501 November 29, 1960.
The disclosure of those references was reviewed by this court in In re Carabateas, 345 F.2d 1013, 52 CCPA 1386, and need not be further detailed here beyond noting that Cutler and Pohland I disclose an analgesic of the structural formula
The examiner found appellant's piperidinol ester obvious from a consideration of the Cutler, Elpern and Pohland patents, employing reasoning similar to that used by the examiner in Carabateas.
Appellant contends that an affidavit showing the compound of claim 1 to be nineteen times more active as an analgesic than the "reverse ester" compound of Cutler and Pohland I when administered subcutaneously is persuasive evidence of unobviousness and patentability of the compound.2 As reference to our decision in Carabateas will establish, we thought the Elpern patents collectively suggested that piperidinol esters having the structure of appellant's compounds there claimed would possess greater analgesic activity, perhaps twice as great, than the "reverse esters" which Cutler obtained from the requisite piperidine carboxylic acid. We also referred to a Braenden publication in that record, not relied on by the examiner in his rejection, which showed that in changing from the carboxylate structure of meperidine being in the 4-position of the ring, and the remainder of the molecule being kept the same, a five to ten-fold increase in analgesic activity is observed.3
We have re-examined the Elpern references on which heavy reliance was placed in our original Carabateas opinion. While we are of the view that those references, together with Cutler, collectively establish obviousness of the structural formula and analgesic activity both of appellant's compounds claimed there and the present compound, we think we erroneously concluded in Carabateas that the Elpern patents would suggest to one of ordinary skill that any improvement in analgesic activity would necessarily inhere in compounds derived compared to otherwise identical compounds of the carboxylate structure, .4
In the absence of a suggestion in the present record that the nature of appellant's improvement would be expected, we think appellant has presented clear and convincing evidence of the greater effectiveness of the claimed compound over the prior art, sufficient here to establish patentability of the compound. In re Lohr, 317 F.2d 338, 50 CCPA 1274. Under the circumstances, we think the record fails to support a finding that the subject matter as a whole would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The decision of the board is reversed.
Reversed.
I am satisfied this is a clear case for reversal, but for reasons other than those stated by the majority.
While I agree that the art of record collectively establishes obviousness of the structural formula and analgesic activity of the compound defined by the claim on appeal, I am unable to agree that a finding of an improvement in activity in esters of the type here involved, obtained from piperidinols, compared to those obtained from piperidine carboxylic acids, would be wholly unexpected to one of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Soni, In re
...by objective evidence, are insufficient to establish unexpected results."). See also In re Carabateas, 357 F.2d 998, 1001, 149 USPQ 44, 46-47 (CCPA 1966) (Rich, J., concurring in the judgment) ("[T]he art makes no suggestion whatever that a reversal of the ester linkage would result in an i......
-
Application of Khelghatian, Patent Appeal No. 7606.
...we find the improvement appellant found has not been suggested by the prior art, we hold the claims to be patentable. In re Carabateas, 357 F.2d 998, 53 CCPA ___. The decision of the board is Reversed. SMITH, Judge (concurring). The legal conclusion of obviousness required by 35 U.S.C. § 10......
-
Ex parte Aihara
... ... TADAAKI ISOZAKI, NORIKO YAMAKAWA and ICHIRO KAWAMURA Appeal 95-4830Application 07/899, 361[1] United States Patent and ... and 2, which are all of the claims in the application. Claim ... 1 is illustrative and is appended to this ... argue that In re Carabateas, 357 F.2d 998, 149 ... U.S.P.Q. 44 (CCPA 1966), ... ...
-
Ex parte Aihara
...U.S.P.Q. 44 (CCPA 1966), indicates that a claimed reverse ester can be found nonobvious (brief, page 7). Based on the particular facts in Carabateas, the court found the evidence was sufficient to show unexpected results. See Carabateas, 357 F.2d at 1000-01, 149 U.S.P.Q. at 46. In the prese......