Interference No. 105,174 Paper 86
Henkel v. P&G Page 7
[a] person of ordinary skill in the art ... would be someone with training,
education, or knowledge of detergent formulations, chemical engineering,
or chemistry, with a Bachelor’s degree in one of those fields and at least a
few years of experience in the detergent profession. [Ex 1008, ¶ 18; Ex
2020; ¶ 6.]
22. Drs. Blasey and Scheper are persons of ordinary skill in the art based on their
educational backgrounds and professional experience (Ex 1008, ¶¶ 2-3, 7 and
18; Ex 2020, ¶¶ 2-3 and 6).
Other findings of fact follow below.
III. Discussion
A. Legal standard
“An interference exists if the subject matter of a claim of one party would, if prior
art, have anticipated or rendered obvious the subject matter of a claim of the opposing
party and vice versa.” 37 CFR § 41.203(a). A patentable distinction in either direction
requires a finding of no interference-in-fact. See Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 353
F.3d 928, 932-34, 69 USPQ2d 1283, 1287-88 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Board
of Regents of the University of Washington, 334 F.3d 1264, 67 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed.
Cir. 2003); Winter v. Fujita, 53 USPQ2d 1234 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1999).
“[A] claim is anticipated if each and every limitation is found either expressly or
inherently in a single prior art reference.” Celeritas Technologies, Ltd. v. Rockwell, 150
F.3d 1354, 1360, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “Absence from the
reference of any claimed element negates anticipation.” Kloster Speedsteel AB v.
Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007