Appeal No. 2001-2486
Application 08/670,885
DISCUSSION
Anticipation requires a disclosure, in a single prior art
reference, of each element of the claims under consideration.
See W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554,
220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “Inherent anticipation
requires that the missing descriptive material is ‘necessarily
present,’ not merely probably or possibly present, in the prior
art.” Trintec Indus. Inc. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292,
1295, 63 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).
The initial burden of establishing anticipation rests on the
examiner.
In making a patentability determination, analysis must begin
with the question “what is the invention claimed?” Panduit Corp.
v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597
(Fed. Cir.) cert. denied, 481 US 1052 (1987). In the present
case, the invention claimed is “a hot melt composition.”
The examiner found that Grillo anticipates the claimed
invention for the following reasons:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007