COMAPER CORPORATION v. ANTEC, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2013) (NP) – Loose anticipation analysis

by Steve Driskill | Sep 6, 2013 | Anticipation

A prior art device anticipates an apparatus claim only if it includes, “either expressly or inherently, all the structural limitations contained in the asserted apparatus claims.” Obviousness is a different inquiry, requiring additional considerations that cannot be...

RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS (Fed. Cir. 2013) (NP) – Examining dependent claims

by Steve Driskill | Aug 7, 2013 | Anticipation

Dependent claims must be examined separately from the independent claims from which they depend. Background / Facts: The patents here claim methods for treating medical conditions, such as inflammatory disorders, characterized by increased endogenous nitric oxide...

IN RE JOSEPH GIUFFRIDA (Fed. Cir. 2013) (NP) – Inherency in the prior art

by Steve Driskill | Jul 18, 2013 | [sub] inherency, Anticipation

Inherent disclosure requires that the prior art reference “necessarily include the unstated limitation.” Mere “probabilities or possibilities” are not enough to find that the prior art inherently discloses something not explicitly present. Background / Facts: The...

OSRAM SYLVANIA, INC. v. AMERICAN INDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2012) (P) – Anticipation of a species by a genus

by Steve Driskill | Dec 13, 2012 | Anticipation

Literal overlap between a prior art genus and a claimed species is not by itself sufficient to sustain a finding of anticipation. It can be overcome by showing that one skilled in the art would recognize that the prior art disclosure was overly broad (or at least...