Appeal No. 2006-3234
Application No. 90/006,410
43. Tablets having a residual moisture content of 3% were said
either to be “soggy tablets” (at 10kN compression force) or to
show “capping” (at 20kN compression force). (Second Vilkov
declaration at ¶ 4).
44. Tablets having a residual moisture content of 4% were said to
be “soggy tablets” which “broke on compression”. (Second
Vilkov declaration at ¶ 4).
III. Legal Principles
We read the claims in view of the specification. A limitation may not
be read into a claim from the specification, but it is appropriate to look to the
specification to define a limitation already in the claim. Elekta Instr. S.A. v.
O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307, 54 USPQ2d 1910, 1913 (Fed.
Cir. 2000).
35 USC § 102(b)
“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless …..the invention was
patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or
in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date
of the application for patent in the United States” 35 USC § 102(b).
To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently.
Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053
(Fed. Cir. 1987). A single embodiment of more broadly claimed subject
matter constitutes a description of the invention for anticipation purposes.
Vas-cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1115
(Fed. Cir. 1991).
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013