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