Appeal No. 2001-1815
Application 08/924,865
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfasrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
“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). 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, Slip Op 98-1270
(Fed. Cir. February 25, 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 by
probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007