Appeal No. 2006-2205 Page 4
Application No. 10/699,956
§ 102(b) Rejection
At the outset, we note that appellants generally argue the
claims subject to this ground of rejection as a group, with
remarks (see, e.g., reply brief, page 2) that are asserted to
have particular application to product claim 71. Thus, we select
independent claim 43 as representative of the rejected method
claims 43, 44, 48, 52, 53, 56, 64 and 66-70. We treat product
claim 71 separately to the extent separately argued in the
briefs.
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose
every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); accord Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd.,
52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Anticipation under this section is a factual determination. See
In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390, 21 USPQ2d 1281,
1283 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15
USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the case before us, we
agree with the examiner’s determination that Shamshoum discloses,
either expressly or inherently, every limitation of the claimed
invention.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007