Ex Parte Sikorski - Page 5




            Appeal No. 2006-3033                                                                            
            Application No. 10/748,992                                                                      

                                     ANTICIPATION REJECTION                                                 
                   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, 1375-76, 77 USPQ2d 1321, 1325-26 (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.                        

                                                     5                                                      





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007