LAGRANGE et al v. KONRAD et al - Page 27




             Patent Interference No. 103,548                                                                       
             indoles have "significantly different stability characteristics and oxidation mechanisms".            
             (1) With respect to stability, Lagrange directs our attention to the Konrad specification             
             (page 1, line 6 to page 2, line 4) and the Lagrange patent (col. 1, lines 18-27). (2) With            
             respect to oxidation, we are directed to a publication by Chavdarian (LR 14).                         
                    Regarding (1), there appears to be no dispute that indoles and indolines exhibit               
             different stabilities (see e.g., KOB 4, paragraph 10). However, we do not see how this                
             makes Grollier's teaching with regard toi indoles irrelevant to Lagrange's indolines. The             
             instant indolines are acknowledged to be related to their indole counterparts. For                    
             example, both parties recognized that 5,6-hydroxyindoles are relatively unstable as                   
             compared to 5,6-dihydroxyindolines and that 5,6-dihydroxyindoline hair dyes do not                    
             exhibit the stability problems associated with 5,6-hydroxyindole (Lagrange Patent '637,               
             column 1, lines 23-30; Konrad application '851, pp. 1-2). "A reference is reasonably                  
             pertinent if ... it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would          
             have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem." In re Clay,             
             966 F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060-61 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In our view, Grollier's                  
             teachings would have commended itself to the attention of persons having ordinary skill               
             in the art and that makes its teaching relative indoles relevant to the subject indolines.            
                    Regarding (2), we agree with Konrad that Chavdarian is irrelevant because it                   
             shows a "theoretical, mechanistical consideration of oxidation reactions of                           
             catecholamines" (KOB 4, paragraph 11). Chavdarian is directed to catecholamines                       

                                                                                                                   
             32 Although the Lagrange patent claims both the unsubstituted and C1 alkyl N-substituted indolines (e.g.,
             claim 25), those claims are not before us. The reissue application amended the patent claims to eliminate
             any reference to them.                                                                                


                                                                                                  27               



Page:  Previous  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007