Appeal 2007-1054
Application 10/640,067
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
1. ANTICIPATION
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim.
See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co.,
730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference
that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim
invalidates that claim by anticipation. Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 77 USPQ2d 1321, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2005),
citing Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc.,
976 F.2d 1559, 1565, 24 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Anticipation
of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue “reads on” a prior
art reference. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346, 51
USPQ2d 1943, 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“In other words, if granting patent
protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude the
public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless
of whether it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.”) (internal
citations omitted).
2. OBVIOUSNESS
OBVIOUSNESS
The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148
USPQ 459, 467 (1966), stated that three factual inquiries underpin any
determination of obviousness:
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013