Appeal No. 2006-0721 Page 7
Application No. 10/113,458
"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]nticipation is a question of fact." Hyatt, 211 F.3d at 1371, 54 USPQ2d at 1667
(citing Bischoff v. Wethered, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 812, 814-15 (1869); In re Schreiber, 128
F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). "A reference anticipates a
claim if it discloses the claimed invention 'such that a skilled artisan could take its
teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in
possession of the invention.'" In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697,
1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936, 133 USPQ 365, 372
(CCPA 1962)).
Of course, anticipation "is not an 'ipsissimis verbis' test." In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 832, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Akzo N.V. v. United States
Int'l Trade Comm'n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 & n.11, 1 USPQ2d 1241, 1245 & n.11 (Fed.
Cir. 1986)). "An anticipatory reference . . . need not duplicate word for word what is in
the claims." Standard Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus., 953 F2d 1360, 1369, 21
USPQ2d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007