SHIOKAWA et al. V. MAIENFISCH et al. - Page 55




                        A party rebutting an assertion of obviousness may present comparative test data showing that                    

                the claimed compounds possesses unexpectedly improved properties or properties not possessed prior                      

                art compounds.  In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750, 34 USPQ2d 1684, 1687 (Fed. Cir. 1995).  As set                            

                forth in In re Soni:                                                                                                    

                        One way for a patent applicant to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness is to make a                          
                        showing of ‘unexpected results,’ i.e., to show that the claimed invention exhibits some                         
                        superior property or advantage that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would                        
                        have found surprising or unexpected.  The basic principle                                                       
                        behind this rule is straightforward -- that which would have been surprising to a person                        
                        of ordinary skill in a particular art would not have been obvious.  The principle applies                       
                        most often to the less predictable fields, such as chemistry, where minor changes in a                          
                        product or process may yield substantially different results.                                                   

                54 F.3d at 750, 34 USPQ2d at 1687.  Moreover, given a presumption of similar properties for similar                     

                compositions, substantially improved properties are ipso facto unexpected.  54 F.3d at 751, 34                          

                USPQ2d at 1688.  Unexpected results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest                            

                prior art.  In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 392, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir.                              

                1991).  Furthermore, in order to establish unexpected results for a claimed invention, objective                        

                evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is                          

                offered to support.  In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035, 206 USPQ 289, 296                                              

                (CCPA 1980).                                                                                                            

                        Maienfisch has submitted evidence to demonstrate that their presently claimed                                   

                1,3,5-oxadiazines have unexpectedly superior insecticidal properties as compared to the closest                         

                comparable compounds recited in JP ‘943.  Specifically, Maienfisch relies upon a Declaration of Dr.                     

                Hubert Buholzer, dated July 28, 1998 (SX 2008), as well as a Declaration of Alfred Rindlisbacher,                       


                                                                  53                                                                    





Page:  Previous  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007