SHIOKAWA et al. V. MAIENFISCH et al. - Page 57




                     (compound 17).  As evident from Mr. Rindlisbacher’s Table 19, the 1,3,5-oxadiazine analog                                                                         

                     compounds were more effective than the compounds from Table 1 of the ‘146 patent in 39 of the tests                                                               

                     and less effective in only one.  Furthermore, each of the 1,3,5-oxadiazine analog compounds had at                                                                

                     least one insecticidal test in which the 1,3,5-oxadiazine proved more effective than the comparable                                                               
                     1,3,5-heterocycle of Table 1 of the ‘146 patent.   We find Maienfisch’s evidence of unexpected20                                                                                            

                     results both credible and convincing.                                                                                                                             

                                Shiokawa contends that Maienfisch’s alleged unexpected results are not commensurate in                                                                 

                     scope with Maienfisch’s claims.  According to Shiokawa, it is unrebuted that the 1,3,5-oxadiazine                                                                 

                     compounds S19 and S20, which fall within Maienfisch’s claim 24, are not unexpectedly superior over                                                                

                     their closest prior art.  (Shiokawa Reply 4, Paper No. 95, p. 7).  Shiokawa states that:                                                                          

                                To overcome a showing of prima facie obviousness in instances where there are two or                                                                   
                                more “closest” prior art compounds, a test compound must show unexpected results                                                                       
                                over each of these “closest” prior art compounds.  In re Johnson, 747 F.2d 1456,                                                                       
                                1461, 223 USPQ 1260, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1984).  Since Maienfisch has clearly shown a                                                                      
                                lack of unexpected superior activity over all of the closest prior art throughout the entire                                                           
                                claimed genus of compounds, it has not shown unexpected superior activity that is                                                                      
                                commensurate in scope with the scope of the claimed invention.                                                                                         

                     (Paper No. 95, p. 7).                                                                                                                                             



                                20As explained by Mr. Rindlisbacher:                                                                                                                   

                                Compounds that show no substantial activity in any of the tests are usually not tested                                                                 
                                further and are not considered candidates for development into insecticides.  On the                                                                   
                                other hand, the fact that a compound shows little or no activity against a particular                                                                  
                                insect pest or a category of pests in this set of standard tests does not mean that the                                                                
                                compound is not a viable candidate.  Such a compound may still be a candidate if it                                                                    
                                shows good activity against other pests or categories of pests in other of these tests.                                                                

                     (Declaration of Alfred Rindlisbacher, MX 1034, p. 2).                                                                                                             
                                                                                         55                                                                                            





Page:  Previous  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007