Appeal No. 2001-2413
Application No. 09/167,894
6, lines 35 through 47) which can embody a nutrient solution or a
therapeutic drug (see columns 1 and 2, and column 5, lines 11
through 26).
The appellants’ position that the examiner’s rejections are
unsound rests on the contention (see pages 4 and 5 in the main
brief and pages 1 and 2 in the reply brief) that Sadri does not
respond to the limitations in the claims relating to “gene
therapy pharmaceuticals.” This line of argument is persuasive
with respect to claim 7, but not with respect to claim 1.
Turning first to claim 1, anticipation is established when a
single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is not
necessary that the reference teach what the subject application
teaches, but only that the claim read on something disclosed in
the reference, i.e., that all of the limitations in the claim be
found in or fully met by the reference. 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 examiner’s analysis as to how each and every structural
element set forth in claim 1 is met by Sadri (see pages 3 and 4
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007