Ex Parte McIntyre et al - Page 4

              Appeal 2007-2202                                                                                           
              Application 10/608,169                                                                                     

              USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).  Analysis of whether a claim is patentable                             
              over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope                          
              of the claim.  We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not                             
              solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest                           
              reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by                        
              one of ordinary skill in the art.  In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,                      
              1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004).  The properly interpreted claim                               
              must then be compared with the prior art.                                                                  
                     “It is well settled that a prior art reference may anticipate when the claim                        
              limitations not expressly found in that reference are nonetheless inherent in it.                          
              ‘Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in                              
              accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it anticipates.’”  In re                            
              Cruciferous Sprout Litig.,301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir.                             
              2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).  "Inherency, however, may                          
              not be established by probabilities or possibilities.  The mere fact that a certain                        
              thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient."  In re                              
              Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1951 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations                             
              and internal quotation marks omitted).                                                                     
                     "[A] prima facie case of anticipation [may be] based on inherency."  In re                          
              King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327, 231 USPQ 136, 138-39 (Fed. Cir. 1986).  Once a                                  
              prima facie case of anticipation has been established, the burden shifts to the                            
              Appellant to prove that the prior art product does not necessarily or inherently                           
              possess the characteristics of the claimed product.  In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255,                      
              195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977) ("Where, as here, the claimed and prior art                               
              products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or                         
              substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the                      

                                                           4                                                             


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013