Appeal No. 2003-0213
Application No. 09/255,712
reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc., 339
F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Inherent
anticipation does not require that a person of ordinary skill in
the art at the time would have recognized the inherent
disclosure. Id. The fact that a characteristic is a necessary
feature or result of a prior art embodiment is enough for
inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time
of the prior invention. Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313,
1321, 69 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In other words,
where a result is a necessary consequence of what was
deliberately intended, it is of no import that a reference did
not appreciate the results. Mehl/Biophile International Corp. v.
Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1366, 52 USPQ2d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir.
1999).
Neither Greul nor Goto expressly teaches that the CO2 gas
extraction step disclosed therein is for the purpose of
regulating the degree of charging of the process and the power of
the process. As indicated above, however, each reference does
describe the extraction step as serving the purpose of removing
excess CO2 gas from the working fluid cycle, i.e., from the
charge of the process. This belies the appellants’ contentions
that neither Greul nor Goto is concerned with controlling the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007