by Steve Driskill | Dec 3, 2014 | [sub] inherency, Anticipation
Inherent limitations of the prior art must be commensurate in scope with the actual limitations claimed in order to establish anticipation or obviousness. Here, for example, an inherent food effect advantage of nanosized formulations of a particular drug was found to...
by Steve Driskill | Jul 25, 2014 | [sub] inherency, Anticipation
Silence in the prior art is not sufficient to sustain a rejection on the grounds of anticipation without inherency, which requires more than the mere possibility or even probability that the feature at issue is contemplated. Background / Facts: The application on...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 5, 2014 | [sub] inherency, Anticipation
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...
by Steve Driskill | Dec 16, 2013 | [sub] inherency, Anticipation
Inherency is a high standard to meet. It is not enough, for example, that a particular function is performed by a given device to infer that that device inherently includes a component for that function. “Inherency requires more than probabilities or possibilities.”...
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...
