Ex Parte Bretler - Page 6

                 Appeal 2007-0849                                                                                      
                 Application 10/106,649                                                                                
                 present invention” (Br. 5; Reply Br. 4-5).  We disagree with Appellant’s                              
                 assertion.  See Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1376, 77                            
                 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“‘Under the principles of inherency,                              
                 if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the                           
                 claims limitations, it anticipates’”) (citation omitted).  On this record,                            
                 Appellant admits that Hill teaches the addition of a composition comprising                           
                 the same active ingredient in the same concentration to a personal care                               
                 article or functional product (Br. 5-6).                                                              
                        Accordingly, the only remaining issue is whether Hill’s composition                            
                 necessarily functions in accordance with Appellant’s claimed invention.  In                           
                 this regard, Appellant asserts that “the Examiner’s suggestion that the anti-                         
                 microbial result is inherent in the use of nonanal is incorrect, because the                          
                 present claims are directed to methods, not compositions” (Br. 7).                                    
                 According to Appellant, “while inherency can be used to reject composition                            
                 claims directed to a new feature or property, it cannot be used to reject                             
                 method claims that disclose a method for achieving a new effect or result”                            
                 (id. at 6).  In our opinion, Appellant’s argument misses the mark.                                    
                        Appellant appears to be under the impression that in order for a prior                         
                 art reference to anticipate a claim under the principles of inherency, a person                       
                 of ordinary skill in the art must recognize, or have knowledge of, the                                
                 inherent characteristic or function of the prior art.  This is not the case.                          
                        “[I]nherency is not necessarily coterminous with knowledge of                                  
                        those of ordinary skill in the art. Artisans of ordinary skill may                             
                        not recognize the inherent characteristics or functioning of the                               
                        prior art.”  [In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343,                                  
                        1349 (Fed. Cri. 2002)].; see also Schering Corp. v. Geneva                                     
                        Pharms., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed.Cir.2003) (rejecting the                                     
                        contention that inherent anticipation requires recognition in the                              

                                                          6                                                            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013