Appeal No. 2005-1957
Application No. 10/000,976
Under section 102(b), anticipation requires that the prior
art reference disclose, either expressly or under the principles
of inherency, every limitation of the claim. See In re King,
801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Implicit in our review of the examiner’s anticipation analysis is
that the claim must first have been correctly construed to define
the scope and meaning of each contested limitation. See Gechter
v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir.
1997). During ex parte prosecution, the examiner applies the
broadest reasonable meaning to the words of the claim in their
ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art, taking into account any enlightenment afforded
by the written description contained in the specification. See
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).
The contested limitation is that the connector extension is
of a length such that “said container may be partially removed”
from the removal end of the container packaging “without removing
said seal” (Answer, page 4; see claim 1 on appeal). Taking into
account the ordinary meaning of “partially removed,” as well as
the enlightenment in the specification that the connector
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007