Application of Druey

• Decision Date: 27 September 1963
• Docket Number: Patent Appeal No. 6895.
• Citation: 138 USPQ 39,319 F.2d 237
• Parties: Application of Jean DRUEY and Paul Schmidt.
• Court: U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)

138 USPQ 39, 319 F.2d 237 (1963)

Application of Jean DRUEY and Paul Schmidt.

Patent Appeal No. 6895.

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

June 20, 1963.

Rehearing Denied September 27, 1963.

Joseph G. Kolodny, Baltimore, Md., and Harry Goldsmith, Summit, N. J. (A. Ponack, Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellants.

Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D. C. (Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents.

Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, Judges.

WORLEY, Chief Judge.

Appellants seek reversal of the decision of the Board of Appeals which affirmed the examiner's rejection of one claim in appellants' application¹ entitled "New Amino-Benzene Sulfonamide," as unpatentable over the prior art. Six claims directed to the method of producing the compound, defined by the rejected claim, were allowed.

The remaining claim reads:

"11. A member selected from the group consisting of 3-amino-2-phenyl-pyrazole and acid addition salts thereof."

The invention, which is used as an intermediate in the preparation of a sulfa drug, has the following structural formula:

According to undisputed facts, applicants first disclosed the claimed intermediate in a parent application² in which they also claimed the sulfa drug. As a result of a restriction requirement by the examiner, the instant continuation-in-part application was filed. The sole use disclosed in the specification for the claimed compound is as an intermediate for the preparation of the now patented sulfa drug, 3-(p-aminobenzene sulfonamido)-2-phenyl-pyrazole having the structural formula No other use for said compound is disclosed in the record.

The reference relied on is:

French Patent 872,801 February 23, 1942.

It is not disputed that the French patent discloses the compound

and teaches that compound III can be used to prepare the sulfa drug represented by the formula:

For convenience we shall identify the compounds by roman numerals.

The examiner rejected the claimed compound I on compound compound III of the French patent, considering them to be adjacent homologues, stating:

"Ordinarily a homologue is unpatentable over the old compound in the absence of a showing of unexpected properties in the use disclosed * * *."

During the prosecution of the parent application, sulfa drug II was rejected over sulfa drug IV of the French patent; however, the examiner withdrew that rejection after applicants presented the affidavit of one Dr. Neipp. Consequently, compound II was patented. In an effort to show the unexpected properties of the instantly claimed compound I, applicants submitted the same affidavit which they had used in the parent case. That affidavit shows that applicants' sulfa drug, compound II, made from claimed compound I, had a higher and longer lasting chemotherapeutic effect, as well as a much stronger activity against streptococcal sepsis, than the sulfa drug of the French patent, compound IV, which had been made from reference compound III.

The examiner, in commenting on the affidavit, stated:

"The subject matter of the affidavit concerning the sulfa drug is considered too remote to bear upon the patentability or the properties of the intermediate. The affidavit does not concern itself with the subject matter `sought to be patented\'. This is emphasized by the use of the same affidavit to argue the patentability of two different classes of subject matter."

The board, agreeing with the examiner, held, that despite the asserted superiority of appellants' sulfa compound II over the sulfa compound IV of the French patent, the former is not "the subject matter sought to be patented"³ in the present case. Continuing, it stated:

"* * * to whatever extent the asserted superiority may be the basis for patentability, appellants\' contribution has been recognized by the granting of Patent No. 2,858,309. The compound before us, however, must shine in its own light, not in the reflected glory of another compound."

The board found appellants' argument that the claimed compound I and reference compound III are not homologues to be inconsistent with statements made during the prosecution of both appellants' parent case, as well as in the instant case.⁴ The board stated it was clear that the claimed compound I is the next adjacent homologue of compound III disclosed by the French patent, within the scope of that term as allegedly defined by decisions of this court, and concluded:

"In any event, and this is the most important aspect to this matter, we are fully satisfied that the claimed compound would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in this art from knowledge of the compound of the French patent. * * *"

We need not decide here whether the compounds in question are properly labeled homologues. It appears to us from the authorities cited by the solicitor and appellants that the term homologue is used by chemists at times in a broad sense, and at other times in a more narrow or strict sense. The name used to designate the relationship between related compound is not necessarily controlling; it is the closeness of that relationship which is indicative of the obviousness or unobviousness of the new compound. In re Herr, 304 F.2d 906, 50 CCPA ___. Here the difference is merely the omission of a methyl group from the pyrazole ring. It seems to be well known that a simple pyrazole ring⁵ contains no substituents at all. We think those considerations constitute strong evidence that omission of the methyl group from the ring is an obvious variation of the reference compound, thereby establishing a prima facie case of unpatentability of claimed compound I over reference compound III. Hence, if appellants are to prevail, they must overcome the weight of that evidence. Thus, the issue here is whether the affidavit is sufficient to do so or whether the showing therein is too remote.

It is appellants' position that since the only use disclosed for their compound I is as an intermediate for direct production of sulfa compound II, the "best evidence" which may be submitted under the circumstances of this case is a showing of the unexpected property of the sulfa compound II, as compared to one made from the reference compound III. They contend further that this so-called "best evidence" rule has been embraced by the board in previous decisions, such as Ex parte Parker, 102 USPQ 367,...