The Subject Patent Already Has Underlining or ... - Bayhdolecentral
The Subject Patent Already Has Underlining or ... - Bayhdolecentral
The Subject Patent Already Has Underlining or ... - Bayhdolecentral
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (term "having" in transitional phrase<br />
"does not create a presumption that the body of the<br />
claim is open"); Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli<br />
Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1573, 43 USPQ2d 1398,<br />
1410 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (In the context of a cDNA having<br />
a sequence coding f<strong>or</strong> human PI, the term "having"<br />
still permitted inclusion of other moieties.). <strong>The</strong><br />
transitional phrase "composed of' has been interpreted<br />
in the same manner as either "consisting of' <strong>or</strong><br />
"consisting essentially of," depending on the facts of<br />
the particular case. See AFG Industries, Inc. v. CardinalIG<br />
Company, 239 F.3d 1239, 1245,57 USPQ2d<br />
1776, 1780-81 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (based on specification<br />
and other evidence, "composed of' interpreted in<br />
same manner as "consisting essentially of'); In re<br />
Bertsch, 132 F.2d 1014, 1019-20,56 USPQ 379, 384<br />
(CCPA 1942) ("Composed of' interpreted in same<br />
manner as "consisting of'; however, court further<br />
remarked that "the w<strong>or</strong>ds 'composed of' may under<br />
certain circumstances be given, in patent law, a<br />
broader meaning than 'consisting of.' "),<br />
2112 Requirements of Rejection Based<br />
on Inherency; Burden of Proof<br />
<strong>The</strong> express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a<br />
pri<strong>or</strong> art reference may be relied upon in the rejection<br />
of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 <strong>or</strong> 103. "<strong>The</strong> inherent<br />
teaching of a pri<strong>or</strong> art reference, a question of fact,<br />
arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness."<br />
In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d<br />
1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(affirmed a 35 U.S.c. 103<br />
rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of<br />
the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731,<br />
739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).<br />
SOMETHING WmCH IS OLD DOES NOT BE<br />
COME PATENTABLE UPON THE DISCOVERY<br />
OF A NEW PROPERTY<br />
<strong>The</strong> claiming of a new use, new function <strong>or</strong><br />
unknown property which is inherently present in the<br />
pri<strong>or</strong> art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.<br />
In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430,<br />
433 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP § 2112.01 with<br />
regard to inherency and product-by-process claims<br />
and MPEP § 2141.02 with regard to inberency and<br />
rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.<br />
PATENTABILITY 2112<br />
A REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. 102/103 CAN<br />
BE MADE WHEN THE PRIOR ART PRODUCT<br />
SEEMS TO BE IDENTICAL EXCEPT THAT<br />
THE PRIOR ART IS SILENT AS TO AN<br />
INHERENT CHARACTERISTIC<br />
Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a<br />
function, property <strong>or</strong> characteristic and the composition<br />
of the pri<strong>or</strong> art is the same as that of the claim but<br />
the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference,<br />
the examiner may make a rejection under both<br />
35 U.S.c. 102 and 103, expressed as a 1021103 rejection.<br />
"<strong>The</strong>re is nothing inconsistent in concurrent<br />
rejections f<strong>or</strong> obviousness under 35 U.S.c. 103 and<br />
f<strong>or</strong> anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best,<br />
562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4<br />
(CCPA 1977). This same rationale should also apply<br />
to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in<br />
terms of function, property <strong>or</strong> characteristic. <strong>The</strong>ref<strong>or</strong>e,<br />
a 35 U.S.C. 1021103 rejection is appropriate f<strong>or</strong><br />
these types of claims as well as f<strong>or</strong> composition<br />
claims.<br />
EXAMINER MUST PROVIDE RATIONALE OR<br />
EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW INHERENCY<br />
<strong>The</strong> fact that a certain result <strong>or</strong> characteristic may<br />
occur <strong>or</strong> be present in the pri<strong>or</strong> art is not sufficient to<br />
establish the inherency of that result <strong>or</strong> characteristic.<br />
In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534,28 USPQ2d 1955,<br />
1957 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (reversed rejection because<br />
inherency was based on what would result due to optimization<br />
of conditions, not what was necessarily<br />
present in the pri<strong>or</strong> art); In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578,<br />
581-82,212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981). "To establish<br />
inherency, the extrinsic evidence 'must make<br />
clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily<br />
present in the thing described in the reference, and<br />
that it would be so recognized by persons of <strong>or</strong>dinary<br />
skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by<br />
probabilities <strong>or</strong> possibilities. <strong>The</strong> mere fact that a certain<br />
thing may result from a given set of circumstances<br />
is not.sufficieut.' " In re Robertson, 169 F.3d<br />
743,745,49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999)<br />
(citations omitted) (<strong>The</strong> claims were drawn to a disposable<br />
diaper having three fastening elements. <strong>The</strong><br />
reference disclosed two fastening elements that could<br />
perf<strong>or</strong>m the same function as the three fastening elements<br />
in the claims. <strong>The</strong> court construed the claims to<br />
require three separate elements and held that the refer-<br />
2100-51 August 2001