Appeal No. 2006-2118 Page 3
Application No. 10/022,754
41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453,
1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence
relied upon by the examiner does support the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2,
4, 6 and 7. Accordingly, we affirm.
In rejecting claims 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 Minn. Mining &
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. 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). To anticipate, every element and limitation of the
claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the
claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383, 58
USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v.
Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007