Appeal No. 2002-1360 Page 8
Application No. 09/133,942
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “[E]very limitation of a claim must
identically appear in a single prior art reference for it to anticipate the claim.”
Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
We agree that Maehara does not anticipate claim 1. As Appellant points
out, in the immunodiffusion assay used by Maehara, the anti-UTI antibodies are
incorporated into a solidified agar matrix. See Mancini, page 235: “By definition
the single-diffusion type of precipitin reaction is performed by incorporating one
of the two partners of the reaction, usually the antibody, into the agar gel, at a
uniform concentration, whereas the other reactant, usually the antigen, is
introduced into a well from which it is allowed to diffuse into the gel.” Maehara’s
disclosure confirms that the anti-UTI antibodies used were incorporated into the
agar gel. See page 119, first full paragraph: “The concentration of agar in the
gel plate was adjusted to 0.9% in 7 ml of veronal buffer . . . containing . . . various
amounts of anti-UTIγG.” Anti-UTIγG is short for anti-UTI rabbit γ-globulin. See
page 118.
Thus, in the assay disclosed by Maehara, the anti-UTI antibodies are
attached to the insoluble agar gel support. Maehara therefore does not
anticipate claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007