Appeal 2007-0518
Application 90/006,969
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2
A claim is indefinite if, when read in light of the Specification, it does
not reasonably apprize those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention.
Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1342, 65
USPQ2d 1385, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Specifically, if the scope of the
invention sought to be patented cannot be determined from the language of
the claims, the Specification or the teachings of the prior art with a
reasonable degree of certainty, a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph is appropriate. In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 541,
179 USPQ 421, 423 (CCPA 1973).
35 U.S.C. § 102
“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).
35 U.S.C. § 103
“A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically
disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013