The opinion
SMITH, Judge
(dissenting).
I disagree with the result reached by the majority as to both the process claims and the product claims.
Process claims 10-14 are not, in my opinion, governed by what the board has found to be “the reasons set forth” by this court in In re Larsen, 292 F.2d 531 , 49 CCPA 711. The present case presents a different factual situation from that in Larsen. In Larsen, the reactants in the process were old. Here, to the contrary, .a novel reactant material is called for in the process of claims 10-14. The appealed process claims cover a process in which, at the time the invention was made, (1) the end product was unknown, and (2) one of the reactants in the process was unknown. The claimed process thus requires selection of two starting materials, (one of which was unknown in such a process at the time the invention was made), to make a product, (which also was unknown at the time •.the invention was made). The claimed process thus requires two differences over the prior art as shown by the Cusic reference. These differences in my opinion are not obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 . I would, therefore, reverse the rejection of the process claims.
As to the product claims 15-17, I dissent from the majority for the reasons stated in my dissent in In re Druey et al., 319 F.2d 240 , 50 CCPA-.