Application of Smith
Decision Date | 02 August 1973 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 8935. |
Citation | 481 F.2d 910,178 USPQ 620 |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Parties | Application of Samuel SMITH and Allen J. Hubin. |
James A. Smith, St. Paul, Minn., Alexander, Sell, Steldt & DeLaHunt, St. Paul, Minn., attorneys of record, for appellants. Ellsworth H. Mosher, Arlington, Va., Stevens, Davis, Miller & Mosher, Arlington, Va., of counsel.
S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D. C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jack E. Armore, Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals sustaining the § 112 rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 13 and 51 of appellants' application Serial No. 527,399 filed February 10, 1966, as a continuation-in-part of application Serial No. 290,218 filed June 24, 1963. We reverse.
The claims are drawn to polymers which are cationically active at the ends. These polymers have the nonterminating characteristic of so-called "living" polymers. Appellants explain the concept in their brief as follows:
Polycationically active polymers, i. e., polymers, in which both ends of the polymer chain are cationically active, are "living polymers". That is, they behave as though they were non-terminated and, at each end of the chain, can continue to "grow" or initiate the polymerization of a cationically polymerizable monomer, such as tetrahydrofuran. Thus, for example, if tetrahydrofuran monomer is added to a polycationically active polymer, it will polymerize onto both ends thereof, producing a higher molecular weight polymer which is also cationally sic active at each end of the polymer chain and which therefore is polycationically active.
Appellants note that whereas previously discovered "living" polymers have been anionic, the present polymers are cationic. They state that:
Among the more important uses of such polymers is in the preparation of block copolymers and of polymers having various terminating groups such as polymeric polyamines, polymeric polyisocyanates and polymeric polythiols. They are also valuable polymeric alkylating agents.
Claim 1 broadly defines the polymer as cationically active at at least two ends by virtue of defined radicals and as "free of alkylatable groups." The claim also identifies the "living," or polycationic, activity of the polymer in terms of the polymer's capacity to react in specified ways. Claim 1 reads as follows:
The other claims on appeal, dependent on claim 1, impose limitations not pertinent to the questions on this appeal.
Referring to the limitation in the claims to the effect that the polymeric moiety be "free of alkylatable groups," appellants state in their brief:
The absence of alkylatable groups in the polymeric moiety is desirable because the living polymers are themselves effective alkylating agents and thus would tend to interact with any alkylatable group on the polymeric moiety, destroying the desired "living" characteristics.
As will be seen, that limitation is at issue in this appeal. The specification does not expressly disclose that the final polymer be free of alkylatable groups in the polymeric moiety (as opposed to the end units), and claim 1 on appeal is not an original claim.1
The specification discloses several methods of making the polymers:
The substantially linearpoly-cationically active polymers of this invention can be prepared by two general methods. The first method involves direct conversion of monomer acid polymerizable monomers such as tettrahydrofuran and sym-trioxane to a di-cationically active polymer, using certain catalysts * * *. In a second method, preformed polymers in the 400 to 100,000 molecular weight range and having certain functional groupings are converted to poly-cationically active polymers, as hereinafter described.
The "second method" is characterized as an indirect conversion process which can produce "either linear, di-cationically active or branched poly-cationically active polymers, depending upon the state of branching and terminal group functionality of the preformed polymer."
The indirect method uses a polymer rather than a monomer as a starting material. The specification discloses the following:
In addition to detailing how to make the claimed polymers directly from certain monomers and indirectly starting with preformed polymers, the specification provides disclosure on how to make the performed polymers and on how to use the claimed polymers. Methods of taking advantage of the polymers' capacity as an alkylating agent are among the uses disclosed. The specification includes a number of examples which illustrate the methods of making and using particular embodiments of the invention.
The issues before us are best introduced by the following selected portions of the board's opinion:
The board adhered to its decision on reconsideration. The board rejected appellants' argument that the invention as claimed has support of equal breadth in the specification as filed.
OPINIONThe solicitor contends that the language of the board's opinion plainly suggests a first paragraph, § 112, "description" requirement rejection. It is asserted...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rohm and Haas Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp.
...skill in the art to recognize that ... the inventor invented what is claimed."); In re Wright, 866 F.2d at 424 (quoting In re Smith, 481 F.2d 910, 914 (C.C.P.A.1973)) ("The specification as originally filed must convey clearly to those skilled in the art the information that the applicant h......
-
Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.
...1978); Application of Blaser, 556 F.2d 534, 537 (CCPA 1977); Application of Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262 (CCPA 1976); Application of Smith, 481 F.2d 910, 914 (CCPA 1973). How the specification accomplishes this is not material. Application of Wertheim, supra; Application of Smith, supra. 39.......
-
Application of Wertheim
...on, of the specific subject matter later claimed by him; how the specification accomplishes this is not material. In re Smith, 481 F.2d 910, 178 USPQ 620 (Cust. & Pat.App.1973), and cases cited therein. It is not necessary that the application describe the claim limitations exactly, In re L......
-
Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc.
...subject matter of the ratio claims when he filed the patent. Utter v. Hiraga, 845 F.2d 993, 999 (Fed.Cir.1988); Application of Smith, 481 F.2d 910, 914 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1973). The methylene to amide ratio was well-recognized as an inherent property of nylons at the time of the original app......
-
THE DEATH OF THE GENUS CLAIM.
...re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (emphasis added). (129.) Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1562 (emphasis added) (quoting In re Smith, 481 F.2d 910, 914 (C.C.P.A. 1973)); see also Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (explaining that, in the contex......
-
Patent Law - Substantially Equivalent Disclosure Sufficient to Satisfy Written Description Requirement for Non-Operative Features - Nalpropion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc.
...Cir. 1989) (mandating application to allow POSITA to recognize inventors' invention of claimed subject matter). (23.) See In re Smith, 481 F.2d 910, 915 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (explaining [section] 112 requires showing inventors had possession of invention). Later CAFC cases have also articulated ......
-
Chapter §6.06 Traditional "Time Gap" Situations Invoking Written Description Scrutiny
...the inventor possessed the later-claimed subject matter at the time the parent application was filed.") (citations omitted); In re Smith, 481 F.2d 910, 914 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (explaining that one of the contexts in which the written description of the invention requirement may apply is when "t......
-
Black Box Biotech Inventions: When a "mere Wish or Plan" Should Be Considered an Adequate Description of the Invention
...constructive reduction to practice requires satisfaction of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. Sec. 112, first paragraph). [120]. In re Smith, 481 F.2d 910, 914 (C.C.P.A. 1973). [121]. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1991). [122]. See Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co......