Appeal No. 2000-0447
Application No. 08/838,685
In addition, in our view, the phrase in the preamble of
claim 1 i.e., “blood-flow directable catheter” is a catheter
constructed of materials and having a size and flexibility such
that the catheter is directable to a target site by blood flow and
as such the “blood-flow directable catheter” does breath life and
meaning into claim 1.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e),
it must be shown that each element of the claim is found, either
expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single
prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d
760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465
U.S. 1026 (1984). The prior art reference need not expressly
disclose each claimed element in order to anticipate the claimed
invention. See Tyler Refrigeration v. Kysor Indus. Corp., 777 F.2d
687, 689, 227 USPQ 845, 846-847 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Rather, if a
claimed element (or elements) is inherent in a prior art reference,
then that element (or elements) is disclosed for purposes of
finding anticipation. See Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co.,
814 F.2d 628, 631-33, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1052-54 (Fed. Cir.)
cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
It is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima
facie case of anticipation resides with the Patent and Trademark
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007