Ex Parte Desponds et al - Page 11


              Appeal No. 2006-2428                                                                    Page 11                  
              Application No. 10/362,500                                                                                       

              being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).  Moreover, because Appellants do not                                 
              argue dependent claims 3, 5, and 6 separately from independent claim 1, we affirm the                            
              anticipation rejection with respect to those claims as well.                                                     
                      As discussed supra, appealed claim 2 requires the chlorinating step to be carried                        
              out in acetonitrile.  In rejecting claim 2 as anticipated by Uneme, the examiner points out                      
              that the “[c]ompound of formula I may be isolated by crystallization (col. 9, lines 19-24)                       
              or the second step may be performed without isolating compound I and the reaction                                
              may [be] carr[ied] out in acetonitrile.  See col. 6, lines 19-34.”  Answer, page 3.  The                         
              examiner further urges that Uneme “teaches that the assay may be performed in a one-                             
              pot process and acetonitrile may be used as solvent.  Even if applicant adds acetonitrile                        
              in step (a) such would have carried over to step (b) if the process is performed                                 
              continuously (one-pot) as in the instant claim 3.”  Id. at pages 5-6.                                            
                      We agree with Appellants that Uneme does not anticipate claim 2.  We note that                           
              “a prior art reference may anticipate when the claim limitation or limitations not                               
              expressly found in that reference are nonetheless inherent in it.”  Atlas Powder Co. v.                          
              IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 1999).  However,                                
              the examiner cannot establish inherency merely by demonstrating that the asserted                                
              limitation is probable or possible.  In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326                         
              (CCPA 1981) (“‘The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of                                 
              circumstances is not sufficient.  [Citations omitted.]  If, however, the disclosure is                           
              sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would                            
              result in the performance of the questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the                       
              disclosure should be regarded as sufficient.’”) (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d                            





Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007