Appeal No. 1997-2646
Application 08/103,089
acted upon by a laser in order to accomplish its removal.5
Appellants argue that Bille fails to teach selection of a
volume of tissue which would enable resolve by adjacent
tissue.6
"Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention."
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S.
1228 (1984), citing Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d
760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Furthermore,
"[t]o establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence 'must make
clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily
present in the thing described in the reference, and that it
would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.'" In re
Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed.
Cir. 1999), citing Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948
F.3d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
5See page 10 of the answer mailed August 17, 2000.
6 See page 10 of the reply brief.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007