Ex Parte 5955106 et al - Page 10

                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