Inherent disclosure may serve as a basis for a finding of anticipation even if the prior art does not contemplate using its teachings for specifically the same purpose as the claimed invention.
Background / Facts: The application on appeal here from rejection at the PTO is directed to a method of removing liquid from the surface of a “food strand” through a series of “gas flows” or “gas knives” that blow liquid from the strand. The PTO found that gas flows originating from the prior art’s slots/openings necessarily would blow liquid from food product (such as a sausage casing) while being processed.
Issue(s): Whether the prior art must expressly disclose the blowing of liquid from the surface of its sausage casing to be anticipatory.
Holding(s): No. “We have long held that such inherent disclosure may serve as a basis for a finding of anticipation. … The Board could reasonably conclude that [the prior art’s] sausage casings—which, after all, need to be dried—necessarily include the presence of at least some liquid on their surface. And even if [the prior art] did not contemplate using its claimed method specifically for blowing surface liquid off a sausage casing, its disclosure of ejected gas delivered at varying pressures … supports the Board’s conclusion that performing the method would result in blowing liquid off the casing.”