Appeal No. 95-3082
Application No. 08/117,546
compounds in columns 4-5 of Hosaka fails to disclose any 6-
isomers and a great number are not phenol esters (brief, pages
5-6).
Anticipation is a question of fact. In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “Under 35
U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a claim must identically
appear in a single prior art reference for it to anticipate
the claim.” Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43
USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Implicit in our review of
the examiner’s anticipation analysis is that the claim must
first have been correctly construed to define the scope and
meaning of each contested limitation. Gechter v. Davidson,
supra; In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674
(Fed. Cir. 1994).
The term “phenol ester” in appealed claim 13 has been
construed by the examiner as described by the “ester” in claim
4 of Hosaka (answer, page 4). Appellants argue that “the
invention is directed only to phenol esters, while the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007