federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

6222 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices35. Dillion, 919 F.2d at 697, 16 USPQ2d at1904–05 (and cases cited therein).36. E.g., id.37. Id. at 692, 16 USPQ2d at 1900–01.38. Dillion, 919 F.2d at 693, 696, 16USPQ2d at 1901, 1904. See also In reGrabiak, 769 F.2d 729, 731, 226 USPQ 870,871 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (‘‘When chemicalcompounds have ‘very close’ structuralsimilarities and similar utilities, withoutmore a prima facie case may be made.’’).39. Dillion, 919 F.2d at 697–98, 16USPQ2d at 1905; In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457,461, 195 USPQ 426, 430 (CCPA 1977); In reLinter, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560,562 (CCPA 1972).40. See, e.g., Dillion, 919 F.2d at 692–97,16 USPQ2d at 1901–05; In re Grabiak, 769F.2d 729, 732–33, 226 USPQ 870, 872 (Fed.Cir. 1985).41. See e.g., In re May, 574 F.2d 1082,1094, 197 USPQ 601, 611 (CCPA 1978)(prima facie obviousness of claimed analgesiccompound based on structurally similar priorart isomer was rebutted with evidencedemonstrating that analgesia and addictionproperties could not be reliably predicted onthe basis of chemical structure); In reSchechter, 205 F.2d 185, 191, 98 USPQ 144,150 (CCPA 1953) (unpredictability in theinsecticide field, with homologs, isomers andanalogs of known effective insecticideshaving proven ineffective as insecticides, wasconsidered as a factor weighing against aconclusion of obviousness of the claimedcompounds).42. See, e.g., In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894,903, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988).43. In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 784, 26USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In reKulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d1056, 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1990).44. Kulling, 897 F.2d at 1149, 14 USPQ2dat 1058; Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,810 F.2d 1561, 1579 n.42, 1 USQP2d 1593,1606 n.42 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S.1052 (1987).45. E.g., Dillon, 919 F.2d at 692, 16USPQ2d at 1901.46. In re Soni, 54 F. 3d 746, 750, 34USPQ2d 1684, 1687 (Fed. Cir. 1995).47. In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 299, 36 USPQ2d1089, 1094–95 (Fed. Cir. 1995).48. E.g., Soni, 54 F.3d at 750, 34 USPQ2d1687; In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1474,223, USPQ 785, 789–90 (Fed. Cir. 1984).49. E.G., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139–40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996);In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).50. E.G., In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750, 34USPQ2d 1684, 1687 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (errornot to consider evidence presented in thespecification). C.F., In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168,37 UPSPQ2d 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (error notto consider factual evidence submitted tocounter a section 112 rejection); In re Beattie,974 F.2d 1309, 1313, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042–43 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Office personnel shouldconsider declarations from those skilled inthe art praising the claimed invention andopining that the art teaches away from theintention.); Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223USPQ at 788 (‘‘(Rebuttal evidence) may relateto any of the Graham factors including the socalledsecondary considerations.’’).51. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. at17, 148 USPQ at 467. See also, e.g., In rePiasecki, 745 F.2d at 1468, 1473, 223 USPQ785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (commercialsuccess).52. Rebuttal evidence may consist of ashowing that the claimed compoundpossesses unexpected properties. Dillon, 919F.2d at 692–93, 16 USPQ2d at 1901. Ashowing of unexpected results must be basedon evidence, not argument or speculation. Inre Mayne, No. 95–1522, slip op. at 9–10 (Fed.Cir. Jan. 17, 1997) (conclusory statementsthat claimed compound posses unusuallylow immune response or unexpectedbiological activity that is unsupported bycomparative data held insufficient toovercome prima facie case of obviousness).53. E.G., In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1580,35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995);Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, 802F.2d 1367, 1380, 231 USPQ 81, 90 (Fed. Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 947 (1987).54. E.G., In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91–92,198 USPQ 210, 214 (CCPA 1978) (Expertopinions regarding the level of skill in the artwere probative of the nonobviousness of theclaimed invention.); Piasecki, 745 F.2d at1471, 1473–74, 223 USPQ at 790 (Evidenceof non-technological nature is pertinent tothe conclusion of obviousness. Thedeclarations of those skilled in the artregarding the need for the invention and itsreception by the art were improperlydiscounted by the Board); Beattie, 974 F.2dat 1313, 24 USPQ2d at 1042–43 (Sevendeclarations provided by music teachersopining that the art teaches away from theclaimed invention must be considered, butwere not probative because they did notcontain facts and did not deal with thespecific prior art that was the subject of therejection.).55. Id. See also In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168,1174–75, 37 USPQ2d 1578, 1582–83 (Fed.Cir. 1996).56. The Federal Circuit has acknowledgedthat applicant bears the burden ofestablishing nexus, stating:In the ex parte process of examining apatent application, however, the PTO lacksthe means or resources to gather evidencewhich supports or refutes the applicant’sassertion that the sales constitute commercialsuccess. C.f. Ex parte Remark, 15 USPQ2d1498, 1503 ([BPAI] 1990) (evidentiary routineof shifting burdens in civil proceedingsinappropriate in ex parte prosecutionproceedings because examiner has noavailable means for adducing evidence).Consequently, the PTO must rely upon theapplicant to provide hard evidence ofcommercial success.In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139–40, 40USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996). See alsoGPAC, 57 F.3d at 1580, 35 USPQ2d at 1121;In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1482, 31USPQ2d 1671, 1676 (Fed. Cir. 1994).57. E.G., Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1482, 31USPQ2d at 1676. (Evidence of commercialsuccess of articles not covered by the claimssubject to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection was notprobative of nonobviousness).58. E.g., In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149,14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Inre Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743, 218 USPQ769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In re Soni, 54 F.3d746, 34 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 1995) doesnot change this analysis. In Soni, the Courtdeclined to consider the Office’s argumentthat the evidence of non-obviousness was notcommensurate in scope with the claimbecause it had not been raised by theExaminer. 54 F.3d at 751, 34 USPQ2d at1688.When considering whether profferedevidence is commensurate in scope with theclaimed invention, Office personnel shouldnot require the applicant to show unexpectedresults over the entire range of propertiespossessed by a chemical compound orcomposition. E.g., In re Chupp, 816 F.2d 643,646, 2 USPQ2d 1437, 1439 (Fed. Cir. 1987).Evidence that the compound or compositionpossesses superior and unexpectedproperties in one of a spectrum of commonproperties can be sufficient to rebut a primafacie case of obviousness. Id.For example, a showing of unexpectedresults for a single member of a claimedsubgenus, or a narrow portion of a claimedrange would be sufficient to rebut a primafacie case of obviousness if a skilled artisan‘‘could ascertain a trend in the exemplifieddata that would allow him to reasonablyextend the probative value thereof.’’ In reClemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (Evidence of theunobviousness of a broad range can beproven by a narrower range when one skilledin the art could ascertain a trend that wouldallow him to reasonably extend the probativevalue thereof.). But see, Grasselli, 713 F.2d at743, 218 USPQ at 778 (evidence of superiorproperties for sodium containingcomposition insufficient to establish the nonobviousnessof broad claims for a catalystwith ‘‘an alkali metal’’ where it was wellknown in the catalyst art that different alkalimetals were not interchangeable andapplicant had shown unexpected results onlyfor sodium-containing materials); In reGreenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189, 197 USPQ227, 230 (CCPA 1978) (evidence of superiorproperties in one species insufficient toestablish the nonobviousness of a subgenuscontaining hundreds of compounds); In reLindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356,358 (CCPA 1972) (one test not sufficientwhere there was no adequate basis forconcluding the other claimed compoundswould behave the same way).