Appeal No. 2003-2105 Page 6
Application No. 08/755,928
2. ANTICIPATION DETERMINATION
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "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) (citing
Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 715, 223 USPQ 1264,
1270 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220
USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d760, 771,
218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). "To 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 persons of ordinary
skill.'" In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(quoting Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746,
1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991)) "Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or
possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of
circumstances is not sufficient." In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326
(CCPA 1981) (citing Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214, 40 USPQ 665, 667 (Cust.
& Pat.App. 1939)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007