Appeal 2007-2005
Application 10/066,110
1 Kropa v. Robie , 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 480-81 (CCPA 1951). “If,
2 however, the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth the complete
3 invention, including all of its limitations, and the preamble offers no distinct
4 definition of any of the claimed invention's limitations, but rather merely states, for
5 example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, then the preamble is of no
6 significance to claim construction because it cannot be said to constitute or explain
7 a claim limitation.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298,
8 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
9
10 Anticipation
11 "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim
12 is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference."
13 Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d
14 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). "When a claim covers several structures or
15 compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated
16 if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in
17 the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed.
18 Cir. 2001). "The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is
19 contained in the ... claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9
20 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required
21 by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is
22 not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir.
23 1990).
24 Obviousness
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013