Appeal 2007-0852
Application 09/919,195
Thus, the Specification is devoid of any structure of any compound
which meets the definition of an "antagonist" within the scope of the claim,
and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been able to practice the
claimed method without knowledge of such a compound.
The lack of enablement rejection is affirmed.
Anticipation
Claims 13-28 stand rejected under §102(b) as anticipated by Ghaffani, Cong,
Xu, Wu, Cao, Song and Yu. We select claim 13 as representative of this rejection
since the claims are not separately argued by Appellants.
To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every limitation of
the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Inherency . . . 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. If, however, the
disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing
from the operation as taught would result in the performance of
the questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the
disclosure should be regarded as sufficient.
Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214, 40 USPQ 665, 667 (CCPA 1939), quoted
with approval in In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA
1981)(internal citations omitted). Thus, a prior art reference may anticipate when
the claim limitation or limitations not expressly found in that reference are
nonetheless inherent in it. See id.; Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814
F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Under the principles of
inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013