Appeal No. 2006-1589
Application No. 10/082,912
We consider the anticipation of the following logical groups of claims, as presented by
appellants [brief, pages 12 and 15]:
• Group I: Independent claims 1, 5, and 9 stand or fall together.
• Group II: Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-12 stand or fall together.
With respect to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102, a single prior art reference that
discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by
anticipation. Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-6, 77 USPQ2d
1321, 1325-6 (Fed. Cir. 2005), citing Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson
Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565, 24 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1992). 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.” Continental Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264,
1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “Inherency, however, 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 Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51
(Fed. Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). “Every element of the claimed invention must be
literally present, arranged as in the claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 868 F.2d
1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007