Ex Parte RUSSO et al - Page 28

                Appeals 2006-2874 and 2006-2747                                                                 
                Applications 08/544,212 and 09/287,664                                                          
                Patent 5,401,305                                                                                
           1    v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 80 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir.                           
           2    2006); DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick                            
           3    Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360-61, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006).                             
           4           What seems apparent on this record is that if one skilled in the art                     
           5    knows that TEP can be used to make compositions containing silicon, then                        
           6    one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation that TEP could be                    
           7    used in similar compositions containing both silicon and tin.  A reasonable                     
           8    expectation of success is all that is required.  In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894,                 
           9    904, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 897,                      
          10    225 USPQ 645, 651-52 (Fed. Cir. 1985).                                                          
          11           Appellants’ "no motivation" argument is seemingly bottomed on a                          
          12    reasonable expectation that the combination would not be successful.  Apart                     
          13    from attorney argument, which of course is not evidence, the only                               
          14    “evidence” in this record to support the attorney argument is Appellants’                       
          15    admission at col. 3, line 65 through col. 4, line 2 of Appellants' patent.                      
          16    However, that admission on its face is narrowly drawn to rates suitable for                     
          17    "mass production" from "readily available and relatively inexpensive                            
          18    reagents."  The claims before us are not limited to any particular use (rates                   
          19    suitable for mass production) or to particular reagents (inexpensive                            
          20    reagents).  Moreover, we are not aware of any requirement of law that                           
          21    obviousness be evaluated on the sole basis of whether an invention can be                       
          22    used in commercial practice.  The useful arts can be promoted by inventions                     
          23    which never become commercial.                                                                  
          24           Appellants also claim there is a lack of "motivation" because Gordon                     
          25    '316 says in Example 2 that water is to be avoided, at least when aluminum-                     
          26    2,4,-pentanedionate is used as a metal oxide precursor.  The obviousness                        

                                                      28                                                        

Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013