2152
2152 Detailed Discussion of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b) [R-11.2013]
2152.01 Effective Filing Date of the Claimed Invention [R-11.2013]
2152.02 Prior Art Under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (Patented, Described in a Printed Publication, or in Public Use, on Sale, or Otherwise Available to the Public) [R-11.2013]
2152.02(a) Patented
2152.02(b) Described in a Printed Publication
IMPAX
GLEAVE
"The enablement requirement for prior art to anticipate under section 102 does not require utility, unlike the enablement requirement for patents under section 112." Impax Labs., Inc. v. Aventis Pharms. Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2006). see also In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) and Novo Nordisk Pharms., Inc. v. Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp., 424 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
NETMONEYIN
[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
“Because the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
...
In an anticipation rejection, “the reference must ‘clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.”’ Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371 (quoting In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972)). While “[s]uch picking and choosing may be entirely proper in the making of a 103, obviousness rejection . . . it has no place in the making of a 102, anticipation rejection.” Arkley, 455 F.2d at 587–88. Here, although Panescu discloses an expandable member, a mesh, and a plurality of thermocouples, Panescu does not disclose these elements “as arranged in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1369.
2152.02(c) In Public Use [R-11.2013]
2152.02(d) On Sale [R-11.2013]
2152.02(e) Otherwise Available to the Public [R-11.2013]
SRI
Regardless of the general contentions and imputed intended meanings articulated by Appellants in the Appeal Brief, "[i]t is the claims that measure the invention." See SRI Int 'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (citations omitted).
VOTER VERIFIED
"It is well established that a human being cannot constitute a means within the scope of § 112, ¶ 6." Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Solutions, Inc., 698 F.3d 1374, 1383 (2012) (citations
omitted)