Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 as to the subject matter claimed in the later filed United States application. Cf. In
2 re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200, 26 USPQ2d 1600, 1603 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
3 To anticipate, a prior art reference must describe, either expressly or
4 inherently, every limitation of the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44
5 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
6 Anticipation is the epitome or ultimate of obviousness. In re Baxter
7 Travenol Laboratories, 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1284-85 (Fed. Cir.
8 1991).
9
10 DISCUSSION
11 Background
12 The original ‘687 patent issued on April 2, 2002 based on a chain of
13 numerous applications claiming benefit of an earlier filing date and priority under
14 35 U.S.C. §§ 119, 120, and 121 to June 8, 1954.2 As fully discussed in our March
2 The ‘687 patent issued from Application 07/883,912 filed on May 12,
1992, which is a continuation of Application 07/719,666 filed on June 24, 1991,
now abandoned, which is a continuation of Application 07/607,215 filed on
October 29, 1990, now abandoned, which is a continuation of Application
06/906,600 filed on September 10, 1986, now abandoned, which is a continuation
of Application 06/498,699 filed on May 27, 1983, now abandoned, which is a
continuation of Application 03/710,840 filed on January 24, 1958, now abandoned,
which is a division of Application 03/514,097 filed on June 8, 1955, now
abandoned, which in turn claims priority to Italian Applications 24227 and 25109
filed in Italy on June 8, 1954 and July 27, 1954, respectively. (The text of the ‘687
38
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013