Appeal No. 2005-0548
Application No. 09/839,164
We find this argument unpersuasive.
Anticipation requires that each and every limitation set forth in a claim be
present, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference. In re Robertson,
169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Celeritas Techs. Ltd v.
Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360, 47 USPQ 1516, 1522 (Fed. Cir. 1998);
Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir. 1987); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick Co., 730
F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Here, if we accept the appellants’ interpretation of representative claim 30 (i.e.,
that it is directed to a pharmaceutical composition having 0.1 mg to 6 gm of alpha globin
regardless of its concentration in the composition (Brief, p. 3)), then we find that said
claim is anticipated by the teachings of the applied prior art. That is, contrary to the
appellants’ argument, we find that Tame discloses a milliliter of buffer containing 5 mg
of alpha globin. Tame, p. 763, col. 1, para. 2. Tame further discloses a milliliter of
buffer containing 0.25 mg of alpha globin. Id. Both compositions are within the
concentration range set forth in claim 30. In addition, we agree with the examiner that
Hoffman discloses two pharmaceutical compositions consisting essentially alpha globin
which are within the scope of the claim; viz., a milliliter of buffer containing 5 mg of
alpha globin and a milliliter of buffer containing 0.3 gm [sic, 3 mg?] of alpha globin.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007