用不同程序產生相同產品不具進步性！（about claims）

這是一個討論Product-By-Process權利範圍撰寫方式是否具有專利性的案例「IN RE MAROSI 710 F.2d 799 (1983)」，這件針對不符專利局審定內容提出訴願（Appeal No. 83-544）的上訴案件，也是常被用來對product-by-process提出核駁引用的案例！（另外也涉及負面表示式若無不明確仍符合112撰寫規定）
如：

IN RE MAROSI 710 F.2d 799 (1983)案例涉及系爭專利的112, 102, 103等核駁理由，專利範圍為製造沸石（zeolitic）化合物成份的流程，此合成沸石化合物的特徵為具有分子尺度的微孔（microporous）結構，可用以交換/篩選離子、分子，以及可作為催化劑（catalysts）之用。一般習知合成沸石化合物的方法是透過離子交換技術從沸石（zeolite）中提出鹼金屬（alkali metal）後產生。但系爭專利提出不同的製程，揭露的流程並不用提出鹼金屬的方式，因此也沒有離子交換的過程，

系爭專利US4456582目前查出已經剩下製程範圍（A process for the manufacture of a nitrogen-containing crystalline metal silicate having a zeolite structure），產品範圍已經被刪除。
目前已核准範圍仍保留描述"essentially free of alkali metal"（如同在CAFC階段的Claim 18）：
1. A process for the manufacture of a nitrogen-containing crystalline metal silicate having a zeolite structure which comprises:

adding a metal oxide, metal hydroxide, metal sulfate, metal nitrate or hydrated metal oxide and a silicon dioxide source that is essentially free of alkali metal to a 5 to 90% strength aqueous solution of hexamethylenediamine to form a mixture that is essentially free of alkali metal;

stirring the mixture to form a homogeneous gel; and thereafter heating the gel to form the crystalline metal silicate; wherein said metal is selected from the group consisting of aluminum, boron, arsenic, antimony, vanadium, iron and chromium, and

whereby said crystalline metal silicate is essentially free of alkali metal.

引用前案（Rollmann et al.）為US4,139,600，提出沸石的合成方式。

系爭專利甚至為了迴避此前案採用負面表示方式「essentially free of alkali metal」，但此寫法不符USC 112, second paragraph的撰寫規定。

對此案例感興趣的是，引用前案Rollmann et al.所揭露製作沸石合成物的流程，即便系爭專利產品權利範圍（product claims）並未使用離子交換提出鹼金屬的方式，但系爭專利所採用的product-by-process仍因為與引用前案有一樣的製品而被核駁，且舉證責任在申請人應該證明兩個製品有非顯而易見的製程差異（這應該是想要獲准專利的關鍵）。
原文：
The product claims are not susceptible of the same analysis. Rollmann et al. disclose a process for making a zeolite which, after ion exchange to remove alkali metal, may have an alkali metal content of zero. Where a product-by-process claim is rejected over a prior art product that appears to be identical, although produced by a different process, the burden is upon the applicants to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.

此案例結論：CAFC僅認同Claims 4, 15, 16不符102, 103的核駁理由，原不符112核駁理由被駁回，認為相關技術人員可以理解，負面表示方式"essentially free of alkali metal"並無不明確。
In view of the foregoing, the rejection based on the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed; the rejection of process claims 2, 3, 11, 13, and 18-20 based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 is reversed; and the rejection of product claims 4, 15, and 16 based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 is affirmed.


判決書可參看：
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19831509710F2d799_11376.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985
Ron