Application of Arthur B. Steele, Jr., Edward J. Mills, Jr., and Donald G. Leis

I respectfully suggest that the quandary in which the majority finds itself is purely of its own making and wholly unnecessary. Applicants for patents have complete freedom in phrasing their claims. If the language they employ is of such a nature as to run afoul of the prior art, as is clearly the case here, then the Patent Office is obliged to reject such claims. They have properly done so here.

The examiner, the board, and appellants agree that the claims call for a compound. Despite that accord by those presumably skilled in this particular art, the majority feels obliged to disregard that…