Application of Hoch, Patent Appeal No. 8323.

Decision Date30 July 1970
Docket NumberPatent Appeal No. 8323.
Citation166 USPQ 406,428 F.2d 1341
PartiesApplication of Paul E. HOCH.
CourtU.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)

Raymond F. Kramer, Buffalo, N. Y., Donald C. Studley, William J. Schramm, Niagara Falls, N. Y., attorneys of record, for appellant.

Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D. C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jack E. Armore, Washington, D. C., of counsel.

Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and FISHER, Chief Judge, Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

RICH, Judge.

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals1 affirming the rejection of claims 3-6 of application serial No. 233,885, filed October 29, 1962, entitled "Novel Chlorinated Benzoyl Chloride and Derivatives Thereof and Methods of Preparing Same."2 We affirm.

Claim 3 is drawn to a genus of three compounds — 4, 5, 6, a, a, a-hexachloro-3-toluic acid and the corresponding acid chloride and anilide — which have the following structural formulae:

Claims 4-6 are species claims drawn to the acid chloride, acid, and anilide, respectively. The usefulness of these compounds as herbicides is emphasized by appellant.

The references expressly relied on to support the rejection are:

                Molotsky        2,946,817       July 26, 1960
                French Patent     820,696       Aug.  2, 1937
                

Claims 3 and 5 are rejected as unpatentable over Molotsky and claims 3, 4, and 6 as unpatentable over the French patent, both rejections having 35 U.S.C. § 103 as their statutory basis.3

Molotsky discloses a group of hexachlorotoluene derivatives having the following formula:

wherein R1 is independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, aliphatic, cycloaliphatic and aryl radicals, and R2 is independently selected from the group consisting of aliphatic, cycloaliphatic and aryl radicals.

Molotsky states generally that these compounds are useful

as intermediate chemicals, as insecticides, in resin production, as fungicides, as vulcanizing agents, as accelerators for the vulcanization of rubber, and as solvents.

Of the compounds specifically disclosed by Molotsky the one structurally most similar to those claimed by appellant is the ethyl ester of 4, 5, 6, a, a, a-hexachloro-3-toluic acid which differs in structure from appellant's acid, supra, only in that the former has -COOC2H5 and the latter -COOH in the 3-position. Thus, Molotsky's compound is the ethyl ester of appellant's free acid. Molotsky also discloses 2, 3-dicarboxy-4, 5, 6, a, a, a-hexachlorotoluene which is a free acid differing from appellant's acid only in having carboxyl groups in both the 2-and 3-positions, rather than just the 3-position.

The French patent discloses compounds which the board characterized as "analogs of the claimed anilide and acid chloride" (emphasis added), the claimed compounds differing therefrom in that they contain two chlorine atoms in 4-and 5-positions whereas the French patent compounds do not. With respect to the utility of the disclosed compounds, the French patent states:

The chlorides of benzene carboxylic acids containing trichloromethyl groups prepared according to the present invention behave as true acid chlorides: they yield esters, anilides, etc., and are important intermediate products in the preparation of dyes, as well as means for the extermination of noxious animals, treatment of plant diseases, etc. Emphasis added.

The examiner was of the opinion that given Molotsky's disclosure of the ethyl ester of 4, 5, 6, a, a, a-hexachloro-3-toluic acid "the concept of the acid would be obvious in the absence of unobvious properties not possessed by the ester * *." The board agreed, adding that Molotsky discloses both acid and ester derivatives of 4, 5, 6, a, a, a-hexachlorotoluene (although not the specific acid claimed by appellant).

Taking a similar position with respect to the French patent, the examiner noted that the compounds disclosed in this reference and the anilide and acid chloride claimed here differ only in the presence of two additional chlorines in the latter pair and that the compounds of the patent are disclosed as being useful for "the treatment of plant diseases." The board added that appellant did not appear to challenge the prima facie obviousness of the claimed structures and noted that the French patent suggests the possibility of polychlorination of the disclosed compounds.

Appellant argues that, notwithstanding Molotsky's utility disclosure quoted above, this reference does not teach which of the several utilities mentioned is possessed by the ethyl ester in question or whether all are possessed by it. He also argues that mention of "treatment of plant diseases" in the utility disclosure of the French patent shows that the compounds disclosed in this reference

have a utility opposite to that of the utility possessed by appellant\'s compounds; whereas they cure plant diseases, appellant\'s compounds kill plants.

At the outset, we note that appellant has not attempted to explain what the phrase "treatment of plant diseases" would imply to one skilled in the art. He has merely asserted that such use is "contradistinguished" from and "antithetical" to the herbicidal use of the claimed compounds. He has in no way supported his suggestion that compounds useful for the "treatment of plant diseases" (whatever that means) would be expected, because of that usefulness, not to be useful as herbicides when applied, perhaps, in greater quantities or to specific plants. On the face of it, "treatment of plant diseases" could mean usefulness in controlling...

To continue reading

Request your trial
626 cases
  • Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Allied Chemical Corp., 76 Civ. 2744.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • July 31, 1979
    ...50 CCPA 913 (1978); In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 460 (C.C.P.A.1977); In re Albrecht, 514 F.2d 1389 (Cust. & Pat.App.1975); In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 57 CCPA 1929 (1970), but has also been favorably received by several circuit courts analyzing patentability of chemical compositions. See Eli ......
  • Genetics Inst. Llc v. Vaccines
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • November 9, 2011
    ...F.2d 1082 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers); In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457 (CCPA 1977) (adjacent homologs and structural isomers); In re Hoch, 57 CCPA 1292, 428 F.2d 1341 (1970) (acid and ethyl ester).1 In this case, the truncated Factor VIII proteins of the ' 112 patent and the truncated Factor VII......
  • Dillon, In re, 88-1245
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • November 9, 1990
    ...USPQ 590, 593 (CCPA 1975); In re Murch, 464 F.2d 1051, 1054, 59 CCPA 1277, 175 USPQ 89, 91 (CCPA 1972); In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1343, 57 CCPA 1292, 166 USPQ 406, 409 (CCPA 1970). Appellant cites In re Wright, 848 F.2d 1216, 1219, 6 USPQ2d 1959, 1961 (Fed.Cir.1988), for the proposition th......
  • Dillon, In re
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • December 29, 1989
    ...of little value in reaching a decision. An example of the strong fact-dependence of § 103 decisions is seen in In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 166 USPQ 406 (CCPA 1970), a case relied on by the Solicitor. In Hoch the prior art disclosed utility of a known compound for treatment of plant diseases,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Deuterated drugs: unexpectedly nonobvious?
    • United States
    • The Journal of High Technology Law Vol. 10 No. 1, January 2010
    • January 1, 2010
    ...the prior art unknowingly possessed by virtue of its structure, there are no unexpected results but just unknown results); In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1344 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (holding that actual differences between the prior art and the claimed compound must be proven to rebut a prima facie ca......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT