Patent Interference No. 103,548
be anticipated by Konrad claim 4.25
“For a prior art reference to anticipate in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102, every element
of the claimed invention must be identically shown in the single reference,” In re Bond,
910 F.2d 831, 832, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The test for anticipation is
not an “ipsissimis verbis”-type test whereby the terms of a claim must be shown to be
literally and exclusively recited in a single reference. See Akzo N.V. v. U.S. International
Trade Commission, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 n.11, 1 USPQ2d 1241, 1245 n.11 (Fed. Cir.
1986). A “reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention ‘such that a
skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the
particular art and be in possession of the invention.’” In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152,
36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Anticipation is a question of fact. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The facts are:
· Lagrange patent claim 29 (i.e., the invention) provides for:
29. New compounds consisting of N-(C2-C4)alkyl-5,6-dihydroxyindolines and their
salts.
· The chemical structure of the compounds of Lagrange claim 29 is:
25 The APJ raised sua sponte the question of "whether the subject matter of Konrad claim 4 anticipates
Lagrange claim 29" in the Decision on Motions (paper no. 49; pp. 18-19).
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007