Appeal No. 2005-0929
Application No. 09/852,519
Discussion
I. Anticipation
In view of its brevity, we reproduce the examiner’s arguments in their entirety.
The examiner argues (Answer, pages 3-4) that
L’Esperance discloses an implantable device for controlling drainage flow of
aqueous fluid from the anterior chamber of the eye. (abstract). Accordingly,
such device of L’Esperance meets the limitations of the instant punctum plug.
The device of L’Esperance contains an outwardly exposed surface (see figure 1,
element # 17; col. 2, lines 55-65). L’Esperance further teaches that his plug
contains an energy-absorbing compound such as fluorescein, Indocyanin green,
methylene blue and Rose Bengal at the tubular section of the plug. Accordingly,
L’Esperance anticipates the limitations of the instant claims [1-4 and 6].
We find the examiner’s position untenable.
It is well established that anticipation requires that each and every limitation set
forth in a claim be present, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference.
In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Celeritas
Techs. Ltd v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522 (Fed.
Cir. 1998); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051,
1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist and
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007