Appeal No. 2007-0627
Application No. 09/482,773
“A single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or
inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.
Thus, a prior art reference without express reference to a claim limitation
may nonetheless anticipate by inherency. ‘Under the principles of
inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or
includes, the claims limitations, it anticipates.’ Moreover, ‘[i]nherency is
not necessarily coterminous with knowledge of those ordinary skill in the
art. Artisans of ordinary skill may not recognize the inherent characteristics
or functioning of the prior art.’” Nicholas V. Perricone, M.D. v. Medics
Pharmaceutical Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 77 USPQ2d 1321, 1325-26
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
Claim 1 is drawn to a method of reducing the appearance of lines and
wrinkles associated with aging of the skin, which comprises applying to the
skin exhibiting lines and wrinkles a makeup composition comprising an
interference pigment having a blue or violet reflectance, combined with at
least one metal oxide pigment. The statement in the preamble of “a method
of reducing the appearance of lines and wrinkles associated with aging of the
skin” is a statement of intended use and not a patentable limitation.
See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305,
51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165-66 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“If . . . the body of the claim
fully and intrinsically sets forth the complete invention, including all of its
limitations, and the preamble offers no distinct definition of any of the
claimed invention’s limitations, but rather merely states, for example, the
purpose or intended use of the invention, then the preamble is of no
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013