Ex Parte 5073484 et al - Page 11

                Appeal 2007-0725                                                                                
                Reexamination Control 90/006,785                                                                
                Patent 5,073,484                                                                                
                                              35 USC  § 102(b)                                                  
                       “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless ….. the invention was                     
                patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or                  
                in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date                  
                of the application for patent in the United States.” 35 USC § 102(b).                           
                       To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every                         
                limitation of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently.                            
                Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053                        
                (Fed. Cir. 1987) and must enable one of skill in the art to make and use the                    
                invention.  Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs. Inc., 246 F.3d                          
                1368, 1378, 58 USPQ 2d 1508, 1516  (Fed. Cir. 2001).                                            
                                              35 USC  § 103(a)                                                  
                       “A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically                    
                disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the                        
                differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art                  
                are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the                      
                time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to                     
                which said subject matter pertains.”  35 USC § 103(a).                                          
                       In considering whether claims are patentable under 35 USC § 103(a)                       
                we consider the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between                     
                the prior art and the claims at issue, the level of ordinary skill in the                       
                pertinent art and any secondary considerations that would bear upon                             
                obviousness.  Graham v. John Deere, 382 US 1, 16 (1966).                                        





                                                       11                                                       

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013