Appeal No. 2006-2826 Page 6 Application No. 09/993,907 A patent applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either structurally or functionally. See In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971) ("[T]here is nothing intrinsically wrong with [defining something by what it does rather than what it is] in drafting patent claims."). Yet, choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk. As our predecessor court stated in Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 213, 169 USPQ at 228: where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. The Examiner’s reason for asserting that DiCosmo’s hydrogel covered device would render the device visible under MRI is that the hydrogel is cross-linked and thus has the same structure required by the claims. Thus, a “basis in fact and/or technical reasoning” was provided by the Examiner to support the rejection, contrary to Appellants’ argument. Brief, page 7; Reply brief, page 3. There is also no requirement in patent law that the cross-linking would have been recognized by the skilled artisan as having conferred visibility to the medical device as long as this property was nonetheless inherent to it. “Inherency is not necessarily coterminous with the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. Artisans of ordinary skill may not recognize the inherent characteristics or functioning of the prior art.” MEHL/Biophile International Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365, 52 USPQ2d 1303, 1305-6 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Having shown that the claimed medical device has the same structure as DiCosmo’s device, we find that the Examiner properly shifted the burden to Appellants to prove otherwise. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658; In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327, 231 USPQ 136, 138-39 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Best, 562Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007