Appeal 2007-1389
Application 10/790,898
4. The Specification does not particularly limit the identity of the
curable composition beyond disclosing that it must be capable
of being radiation cured (Specification 12:12-23).
5. The “large scale dimensional stability” of the composite article
is a property of the article.
6. Lu describes a composite article (base sheet 11 as shown in
Figure 1) including an array 14 and a reflective layer 17 (Lu,
col. 3, ll. 59-64).
7. Array 14 is formed from a radiation curable oligomeric
composition (Lu, col. 2, l. 64 to col. 3, l. 12 (curable
composition spread between a substrate film and the master);
col. 8, ll. 35-48)). The compositions suggested as useful are the
same or similar to those disclosed in Appellants’ Specification
and include, for instance, urethane-based oligomers and
acrylates (Compare Lu, col. 8, ll. 45-46 and col. 9, ll. 12-18
with Specification 12:17-23).
8. Lu does not expressly state that the composite has “large scale
predictable dimensional stability.”
C. Principles of Law
“[A] prior art reference without express reference to a claim limitation
may nonetheless anticipate by inherency.” In re Omeprazole Patent
Litigation, 483 F.3d 1364, 1373, 82 USPQ2d 1643, 1650 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
When a claimed product appears to be substantially identical to a product
disclosed by the prior art, the burden is on the Applicants to prove that the
product of the prior art does not necessarily or inherently possess
characteristics or properties attributed to the claimed product. In re Spada,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013