Thorpe, In re
Decision Date | 21 November 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 85-1913,85-1913 |
Citation | 227 USPQ 964,777 F.2d 695 |
Parties | In re Donald H. THORPE, et al. Appeal |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
James F. Tao, Niagara Falls, N.Y., argued for appellants. With him on the brief was William G. Gosz, Niagara Falls, N.Y.
Richard E. Schafer, Associate Sol., U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol., Washington, D.C.
Before DAVIS, Circuit Judge, NICHOLS, Senior Circuit Judge, and NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
We affirm the judgment of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals (the Board), which upheld the examiner's rejection of product-by-process claims 44, 45, 46, and 47 of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 132,739 of Donald H. Thorpe et al. (Thorpe), filed March 24, 1980 for "Improved Process for Metal-Modified Phenolic Novolac Resin".
The invention relates generally to color developers in carbonless copy paper systems. Such systems include a top sheet having microcapsules of a color-former coated on its back, and a copy sheet coated with a color-developer on its face. The color-former microcapsules rupture upon pressure of a writing instrument and release chromogenic material that reacts with the color-developer on the copy sheet.
It is known to use, as color developer, a novolac (sometimes spelled "novolak") phenol-aldehyde resin having an incorporated metal salt. Such materials had been produced prior to Thorpe's improvement, by heating the novolac resin with an organic metal salt such as zinc dibenzoate or zinc dipropionate in the presence of a weak base such as ammonia. In face of the prior art's teachings against the use of metal oxides with novolac resins, Thorpe discovered a process for making a metal-modified novolac color developer by reacting a novolac resin, a metal oxide or its functional equivalent, an ammonia base, and a mono-carboxylic acid. Claim 1 is the broadest claim:
1. In the process of preparing a metal-modified novolac phenolic resin wherein the metal is selected from the group consisting of copper, aluminum, zinc, chromium, indium, tin, cadmium, cobalt and nickel, by reaction of a compound of said metal, an ammonia base and a novolac phenolic resin at an elevated temperature sufficient to maintain the reaction mixture in molten condition, the improvement comprising charging as reactants an oxide of the metal or the functional equivalent of said oxide, a mono-carboxylic acid selected from the group consisting of C1-12 alkanoic acids and aromatic carboxylic acids of the benzene or naphthalene series, an ammonia base and the novolac phenolic resin.
The claimed process differs from the prior art in Thorpe's use of the metal oxide and carboxylic acid as discrete reactants, replacing the more expensive preformed metal carboxylate. These process claims were allowed. The claims which are the subject of this appeal are four product-by-process claims, of which claim 44 is typical:
44. The product of the process of Claim 1.
The Board affirmed the examiner's rejection of the product-by-process claims under 35 U.S.C. Secs. 102(b), 102(e), and 103, in view inter alia of the reference to Mueller showing zinc dibenzoate in the same novolac resin compositions, and the Kikuga or Stolfo references which show novolac-ammonia base compositions modified with zinc carboxylates; which the Board described as the same product prepared by a different process.
The Board observed that the case law requires that the product itself meet all the requirements for patentability. The PTO's position is that Thorpe's assertion of patentability of his product under Secs. 102 and 103 is unsupported by evidence, and that the burden of coming forward with evidence was on Thorpe in view of the "admission" in his specification that his product has properties "about equal" to those of the prior art, and a page of Thorpe's notebook (filed under Rule 131) wherein he identified the process as forming "zinc benzoate in situ", the reagent shown in the prior art.
Thorpe contends that it was unexpected that the product, even if it were the same as that of the prior art, resulted from the process of his invention. Thorpe also argues that the PTO bears the burden of demonstrating that the products are the same, and that the PTO can not meet this burden by relying on Thorpe's own disclosures. Thorpe also argues that if the process is patentable, as has already been held, then product-by-process claims should also, without more, be patentable.
Product-by-process claims are not specifically discussed in the patent statute. The practice and governing law have developed in response to the need to enable an applicant to claim an otherwise patentable product that resists definition by other than the process by which it is made. For this reason, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d Cir.1935).
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 292-93 (Fed.Cir.19...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Biogen 755 Patent Litig.
...by which the product is made where the product's characteristics are unknown or otherwise cannot be described. See In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the Federal Circuit explained:Product-by-process claims are not specifically discussed in the patent statute. The practice......
-
Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., Nos. 89-1541
...recognizing that this precedent arose in the context of patent prosecution, not patent infringement. E.g., In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed.Cir.1985) (holding that prior art pertinent only to product is proper ground for rejecting product-by-process claims); In re Brown, 459 F.......
-
Atlantic Thermoplastics Co., Inc. v. Faytex Corp.
...are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed.Cir.1985). The entire history of product-by-process claims suggests a ready explanation for the apparent difference of view about......
-
Biacore v. Thermo Bioanalysis Corp.
..."product of the process," "resulting from the process of," and "being produced by the process comprising." See, e.g., In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 696 (Fed.Cir.1985); In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 180 U.S.P.Q. 324, 324 (C.C.P.A.1974); Application of Hughes, 496 F.2d 1216, 1217 (C.C.P.A.1974)......
-
Broad Construction Of Process In Product-By-Process Claim Dooms Petitioner's Inherency Argument For Resulting Product
...is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production." Id. at *31 (emphasis added) (citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. Restem argued, based on inherency, that the prior art disclosed a method that met the limitations of claim 1 and "necessarily inclu......
-
A Mixed Bag: Some Claims Found Unpatentable But Others Are Patentable
...in product-by-process format, determination of patentability is based only on the product without regard to the process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985). According to the examiner, "[a]lthough the method of Moriarty and the steps recited in the instant claims are not identi......
-
A Mixed Bag: Some Claims Found Unpatentable But Others Are Patentable
...in product-by-process format, determination of patentability is based only on the product without regard to the process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985). According to the examiner, "[a]lthough the method of Moriarty and the steps recited in the instant claims are not identi......
-
Chapter §2.05 Specialized Claiming Formats
...was permitted by the U.S. Patent Office as early as 1891. See In re Bridgeford, 357 F.2d 679, 682 (C.C.P.A. 1966).[526] See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (explaining that "[t]he practice and governing law have developed in response to the need to enable an applicant to cl......
-
CHAPTER § 3.01 Using Patents to Protect Pharmaceutical Research
...35 U.S.C. §§ 1-376.[2] 35 U.S.C. § 271.[3] Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308 (1980).[4] 35 U.S.C. § 100(b).[5] In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, (Fed. Cir. 1985).[6] Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 303.[7] Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981).[8] Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ......