Appeal No. 1999-0853
Application No. 08/709,869
"Anticipation is established only 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.), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S.
1228 (1984), citing Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d
760, 772,
218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The prior art disclosure
need not be expressed in order to anticipate. Standard Havens
Prods., Inc. V. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369,
21 USPQ2d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir.) cert. denied, 506 U.S. 817
(1992).
Furthermore, "[t]o establish inherency, the extrinsic
evidence 'must make clear that the missing descriptive matter
is necessarily present in the thing described in the
reference, and that it would be so recognized by person of
ordinary skill.'" In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49
USPQ2d 1949, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 1999) citing Continental Can Co.
v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.3d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749
(Fed. Cir. 1991). "Inherency, however, may not be established
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007