Patent Appeal No. 74-603.United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
February 20, 1975.
Robert W. Furlong, Fish Richardson, Boston, Mass., attorney of record for
Page 1399
appellant. Ernest K. Bean, Assts. Gen. Counsel, Akron, Ohio, of counsel.
Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D.C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred E. McKelvey, Washington, D.C., of counsel.
Appeal from the Patent Office Board of Appeals.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH BALDWIN, LANE, Associate Judges, and PHILIP NICHOLS, Associate Judge, United States Court of Claims.
BALDWIN, Judge.
[1] This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 27 and 28 of appellant’s application[1] entitled “Low Temperature Synthetic Rubber and Method of Making Same.” We reverse.[2] The Invention
[3] Appellant claims a method or process for producing a vulcanizable polybutadiene disclosed as having improved flexibility at low temperatures. The claims on appeal are as follows:
27. A method for polymerizing 1,3-butadiene which comprises contacting said 1,3-butadiene with a catalyst consisting essentially of (a) a compound corresponding to the formula R[3]A1, wherein R is alkyl radical having 2 to 4 carbon atoms and (b) titanium tetraiodide.
28. A process for producing rubbery vulcanizable polybutadiene which is characterized by improved flexibility at low temperatures, which process comprises polymerizing butadiene-1,3 in an inert hydrocarbon medium in the presence of a catalyst resulting from the interaction in said medium of (a) a trialkyl aluminum of the formula R[3]A1 wherein R is an alkyl radical containing 2 to 8 carbon atoms and (b) titanium tetraiodide, the mo1 ratio of aluminum to titanium being from 0.3 to 1 to 15 to 1.
[4] Prosecution History
[5] Appellant’s application, as originally filed on April 18, 1955, contained 13 claims directed toward methods of making polybutadiene, polyisoprene copolymers of butadiene and isoprene and the products polybutadiene and polyisoprene prepared by polymerizing their respective monomers in the presence of specific catalysts. The catalysts were broadly recited as the interaction product of (1) an aluminum compound of the formula R[2]A1X, wherein R is an alkyl, cycloalkyl, or acyl radical, and, X a hydrogen, halogen, alkyl, cycloalkyl, or aryl radial, with (2) a metal halide selected from the group consisting of the chlorides, bromides and iodides of titanium and zirconium.
Page 1400
radical containing 2 to 8 carbon atoms, an interference[3]
was declared with instant claim 27 as the count. Appellant was awarded priority as to claim 27. The examiner rejected both claims 27 and 28 on prior art.
[10] U.S. Patent No. 3,114,743 (hereinafter Horne) discloses the preparation of polyisoprene by the polymerization of the monomer isoprene. The catalyst employed is the reaction product of equimolar proportions of (1) a compound containing a heavy metal occurring in the 4th to 6th positions of the long periods of the periodic table and (2) an organoaluminum compound. Viewed in a light most favorable to the Patent Office, the catalyst employed by Horne is the reaction product of a titanium halide, the chloride being most preferred, and an aluminum trialkyl. [11] U.S. Patent No. 3,118,864 (hereinafter Robinson et al.) discloses the preparation of homopolymers and copolymers of conjugated alkadienes such as butadiene, isoprene and chloroprene. The catalyst employed in carrying out the polymerization is the reaction product of titanium tetrachloride and a lithium-aluminum tetraalkyl.The method which comprises polymerizing a monomeric material consisting essentially of monomeric butadiene-1,3 in an inert liquid hydrocarbon medium in the presence of a polymerization catalyst prepared by mixing (a) titanium tetrachloride with (b) a trialkyl aluminum compound, the proportions of (a) and (b) being such as to provide a molar ratio of titanium to aluminum of about 1.5 to 1.0 to 3.0 to 1.0.
[12] The Rejection
[13] The board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claims 27 and 28 as being unpatentable (35 U.S.C. § 103) over Horne in view of Robinson et al. and over the count of Interference No. 92,258 (Claim 5, of Carlson et al.), in view of Robinson et al. or Horne. It was the board’s position that
[14] The board found it unnecessary to specifically commit upon the rejection of claims 27 and 28 as being unpatentable (35 U.S.C. § 103) over claim 5 of Carlson et al. in view of Robinson et al. or Horne. We thus look to the examiner’s answer to find the specifics of this rejection. It was the examiner’s position thatRobinson et al. disclose the similarity of butadiene and its homologue, isoprene, in a polymerization closely related
Page 1401
to that herein claimed. In view of this disclosure, we agree with the Examiner that it would be obvious to substitute butadiene for the isoprene in the process of Horne, thus to anticipate appellant’s claimed process, noting particularly the teaching in Horne (sentence bridging columns 2 and 3) of iodides as substitutes for chlorides of metals such as titanium in the catalyst combination.
[15] In response to these rejections, appellant submitted to the Patent Office three Rules 132 affidavits. The first, by Minchak, reports the Gehman Freeze Point of various polybutadienes and polyisoprenes, made in accordance with the prior art and the claimed process. Although the affidavit showed superior low temperature properties for butadienes prepared according to the claimed process as compared to polybutadienes of Robinson et al. or the count of Interference No. 92,258 or the polyisoprene of Horne,[4] the examiner refused to consider the results on two grounds:[t]he count . . . is directed to polymerizing butadiene with a Ti Cl[4]-AIR[3] (R is alkyl) catalyst using a Ti/A1 ratio of 1.5/1 to 3/1 (A1/Ti of 0.67/1 to 0.33/1). Since Horne teaches the equivalence of the Ti I4-AIR3 and Ti C1[4]-AIR[3] catalysts when polymerizing another conjugated diolefin, i. e., isoprene, a homolog of butadiene, it would be obvious to use Ti I4 in place of Ti C1[4] to polymerize butadiene as recited by the count. From the disclosure of Robinson et al, one would expect either butadiene or isoprene to form solid useful polymers using a titanium tetrahalide-AIR[3] catalysts in view of its generic teaching of organometallic reducing agents.
[T]here is no basis in this specification for any differences of any kind including low temperature properties between polybutadienes or polyisoprenes produced with a TiI[4]-AIR[3] catalyst as compared to a TiC1[4]-AIR[3] catalyst. This specification, as far as the properties of the polybutadienes and polyisoprenes are concerned, teaches the equivalence of the catalysts formed form titanium [sic] tetrahalides and a wide variety of organoaluminum compounds . . ..
* * * * * *
[16] The second affidavit, by Macey, indicates that the Gehman Low Temperature Torsion Test is a measure of the potential use of a rubber at low temperatures, such as might be found in arctic regions. Macey further expressed his opinion that a difference on the order of as little as 10°C in the Gehman temperature has a pronounced influence on the practical application of a rubber. [17] The third affidavit, again by Minchak, was submitted to respond to numerous criticisms raised by the examiner with regard to the first Minchak affidavit. It would serve no purpose to discuss this affidavit in detail since the examiner found it convincing and withdrew his objection which was that Minchak’s prior affidavit failed to accurately reproduce examples 6 and 7 of Robinson et al. for comparison with appellant’s polybutadiene.With the above in mind it is also believed that the affidavit provides insufficient evidence that the low temperature properties of polybutadienes produced within the bounds of claims 27 and 28 will inherently have better low temperature properties than those
Page 1402
of Robinson et al. The specification does not teach that they do and in view of the difference produced between the two titanium tetrahalides, there is no reasons [sic] to presume they will. Moreover, it is a fact that the structure of the polybutadiene produced with a TiI[4]-AIR[3] catalyst in dependent upon the A1/Ti ratio, the catalyst concentration and the solvent as shown by Moyer et al. and Stewart et al. The two Short et al. articles show how the properties of the polybutadienes are affected by its structure. The Crawford et al. reference also shows how structure and properties are affected by different Ziegler-type catalysts.
[18] Opinion
[19] At the outset, we find that the three affidavits submitted under Rule 132, and particularly the first Minchak affidavit, are commensurate in scope with the claims. In an attempt to demonstrate otherwise, the examiner cited Canadian Patent No. 627,741 (Stewart et al.) and the Moyer et al. article to show that the cis-1,4 content of polybutadiene, made by employing tri-isobutyl aluminum/titanium tetraiodide as the catalyst, varies with the mole ratio of aluminum to titanium. However, as appellant points out, Stewart et al. shows no cis-1,4 content below 40% while Moyer et al. shows no cis-1,4 content below about 50% for any titanium tetraiodide catalyst. This is particularly illuminating when one notes that the Short et al. article (Vol. 30) shows that the Gehman Freeze Point never rises above -85°C until the cis-1,4 content drops to 36%.
[24] We do not find that the Davies case supports the board’s position. In Davies, an attempt was made to demonstrate the unobviousness of claims directed to a composition, a major proportion of which was polystyrene further containing a butadiene/styrene copolymer as a toughening agent. In the specification, there was no disclosure that the claimed invention possessed the unexpected properties of improved gloss, transparency and processability. The specification merely pointed out that the toughened polystyrene had improved mechanical properties such as impact strength and the like. Thus, i Davies, we agreed that the examiner was justified in his refusal to consider affidavits showing improved gloss, etc. for the reason that the properties were not disclosed in the application. [25] The instant specification, on the other hand, is replete with statements to the effect that the entire thrust of appellant’s invention is the production of certain polymers which possess superior low temperature properties, such as improved flexibility at very low temperatures. The first Minchak affidavit shows just such superior low temperature properties possessed by polybutadienes prepared according to the claimed process. More specifically, the affidavit compares the Gehman Freeze Point Temperatures for a number of polybutadienes prepared according to the claims on appeal with (1) a polymer prepared according to the count of Interference No. 92-258; (2) examples 6 and 7 of Robinson et al.; and (3) the teachings of Horne. We hold that the specification supports such an affidavit. There is no requirement that superiority over prior art be disclosed in the application; it is enough if the basic property or utility in which the advantage resides is disclosed. In re Lorenz, 333 F.2d 908, 51 CCPA 1522 (1964). [26] We recognize that appellant’s application previously contained claims directed toward methods of making polyisoprene, polybutadiene and butadiene-isoprene copolymers, employing as a catalyst, the product derived by the interaction of (1) an aluminum compound of the general formula R[2]A1X, wherein R is an alkyl, cycloalkyl or aryl radical and X a hydrogen, a halogen, or an alkyl, cycloalkyl or aryl radical, with (2) a metal halide selected from the group consisting of the chlorides, bromides and iodides of titanium and zirconium. We further recognize that such claims would be clearly anticipated by the art of record, particularly by the count of Interference No. 92,258 and the Horne patent. However, appellant’s affidavit evidence may not be disregarded simply because of the broad scope of the claims in the original application. In re Saunders, 444 F.2d 599, 58 CCPA 1316 (1971). [27] The specification discloses that butadiene is the preferred monomer useful in practicing appellant’s invention. Although the specification discloses no particular preference between catalysts containing titanium tetraiodide and titanium tetrachloride, this should not become the basis for disregarding affidavit evidence demonstrating the superiority of the resulting claimed process employing titanium tetraiodide in a catalyst over processes of the prior art which employ titanium tetrachloride. As we stated in In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 596, 45 CCPA 1037, 1047 (1958):Appellant’s arguments and data attempting to distinguish between the iodides and the chlorides are completely
Page 1403
at variance with appellant’s specification, which does not support such distinction. It also supports no distinction between butadiene and isoprene. The Rule 132 affidavits, therefore, find inadequate support and are not persuasive. Directly in point is In re Davies et al., (CCPA), 475 F.2d 667.
[28] Although the board stated that In re Ruff, supra, did not apply to the rejection involved herein “since the Examiner is not relying upon an equivalence set forth only in appellant’s specification but upon the specific teachings of Robinson et al. and Horne,” both the examiner and the board refused to give weight to the affidavits submitted by appellant because “date attempting to distinguish between the iodides and the chlorides are completely at variance with appellant’s specification, which does not support such distinction.” We find no substantive difference between this position and that found to have been erroneous in In re Ruff, supra. [29] Appellant is correct in his assertion that catalytic effects are a particularly unpredictable aspect of the art of chemistry. For example, see Corona Co. v. Dovan Corp., 276 U.S. 358, 48 S.Ct. 380, 72 L.Ed. 610 (1928); In re Doumani, 281 F.2d 215, 47 CCPA 1120 (1960). But we are of the opinion that a prima facie case of obviousness has been established by the Patent Office. However, appellant has submitted credible affidavit evidence showing unexpected properties possessed by polymers prepared according to his now claimed invention. This evidence can be employed to rebut the Patent Office’s prima facie case. In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 50 CCPA 1084 (1963). [30] After a careful review of all of the art of record including the evidence submitted by appellant, we are of the view that the prima facie case of obviousness has been successfully rebutted. Accordingly, the decision of the board is reversed. [31] Reversed.[T]here is a basic difference between (a) a showing by an applicant for patent of what the art knows to be equivalents or what means taken from the art he can use indiscriminately without affecting his invention in carrying it out, and (b), a showing that he has found, as a part of his discovery or inventive process, that certain things may be used to achieve the same result. These findings are his property and he does not lose all of them just because of his showing when it turns
Page 1404
out that others have earlier discovered one or more of them.
Page 541