|← MPEP 2129||↑ MPEP 2100||MPEP 2132 →|
2131 Anticipation — Application of 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b), and (e)
|35 U.S.C. 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.|
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent, or
(b)the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States, or
(c)he has abandoned the invention, or
(d)the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor’s certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor's certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States, or
(e)the invention was described in — (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language; or
(f)he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or
(g)(1)during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
TO ANTICIPATE A CLAIM, THE REFERENCE MUST TEACH EVERY ELEMENT OF THE CLAIM
- A claim is anticipated only if every single element of that claim is found, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference.
- When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art.
- The elements in the prior art must be arranged as required by the claim, but identity of terminology is not required.
- Note that, in some circumstances, it is permissible to use multiple references in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection. See MPEP § 2131.01.
2131.01 Multiple Reference 35 U.S.C. 102 Rejections
Normally, only one reference should be used in making a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. However, a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection over multiple references has been held to be proper when the extra references are cited to:
(A) Prove the primary reference contains an "enabled disclosure;" (See para. I, below)
(B) Explain the meaning of a term used in the primary reference (See para. II, below); or
(C) Show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent (See para. III, below).
I. TO PROVE REFERENCE CONTAINS AN "ENABLED DISCLOSURE"
- When the claimed composition or machine is disclosed identically by the reference, an additional reference may be relied on to show that the primary reference has an "enabled disclosure."
- A "motivation to combine the references" is not required because such patents were only submitted as evidence of what was in the public's possession before invention.
II. TO EXPLAIN THE MEANING OF A TERM USED IN THE PRIMARY REFERENCE
- Extra references or Other evidence can be used to show meaning of a term used in the primary reference
III. TO SHOW THAT A CHARACTERISTIC NOT DISCLOSED IN THE REFERENCE IS INHERENT
- Extra Reference or Evidence Can Be Used To Show an Inherent Characteristic of the Thing Taught by the Primary Reference
- To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence
- Such evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.
- As long as there is evidence of record establishing inherency, failure of those skilled in the art to contemporaneously recognize an inherent property, function or ingredient of a prior art reference does not preclude a finding of anticipation.
- Note: the critical date of extrinsic evidence showing a universal fact need not antedate the filing date. (See MPEP 2124.)
See MPEP § 2112 - § 2112.02 for case law on inherency.
2131.02 Genus-Species Situations
A SPECIES WILL ANTICIPATE A CLAIM TO A GENUS
- A generic claim cannot be allowed to an applicant if the prior art discloses a species falling within the claimed genus.
- The species in that case will anticipate the genus.
In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408 (Application claimed a genus of 21 specific chemical species of compounds. The prior art reference applied against the claims disclosed two of the chemical species. The parties agreed that the prior art species would anticipate the claims unless applicant was entitled to his foreign priority date.)
A REFERENCE THAT CLEARLY NAMES THE CLAIMED SPECIES ANTICIPATES THE CLAIM NO MATTER HOW MANY OTHER SPECIES ARE NAMED
- A genus does not always anticipate a claim to a species within the genus. However, when the species is clearly named, the species claim is anticipated no matter how many other species are additionally named.
A GENERIC CHEMICAL FORMULA WILL ANTICIPATE A CLAIMED SPECIES COVERED BY THE FORMULA WHEN THE SPECIES CAN BE "AT ONCE ENVISAGED" FROM THE FORMULA
- When the compound is not specifically named, but instead it is necessary to select portions of teachings within a reference and combine them, e.g., select various substituents from a list of alternatives given for placement at specific sites on a generic chemical formula to arrive at a specific composition, anticipation can only be found if the classes of substituents are sufficiently limited or well delineated.
In In re Petering, the prior art disclosed a generic chemical formula "wherein X, Y, Z, P, and R'- represent either hydrogen or alkyl radicals, R a side chain containing an OH group." The court held that this formula, without more, could not anticipate a claim to 7- methyl-9-[d, l'-ribityl]-isoalloxazine because the generic formula encompassed a vast number and perhaps even an infinite number of compounds. However, the reference also disclosed preferred substituents for X, Y, Z, R, and R' as follows: where X, P, and R' are hydrogen, where Y and Z may be hydrogen or methyl, and where R is one of eight specific isoalloxazines. The court determined that this more limited generic class consisted of about 20 compounds. The limited number of compounds covered by the preferred formula in combination with the fact that the number of substituents was low at each site, the ring positions were limited, and there was a large unchanging structural nucleus, resulted in a finding that the reference sufficiently described "each of the various permutations here involved as fully as if he had drawn each structural formula or had written each name." The claimed compound was 1 of these 20 compounds. Therefore, the reference "described" the claimed compound and the reference anticipated the claims.
2131.03 Anticipation of Ranges
I. A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE IN THE PRIOR ART WHICH IS WITHIN A CLAIMED RANGE ANTICIPATES THE RANGE
- When, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is anticipated if one of them is in the prior art
II. PRIOR ART WHICH TEACHES A RANGE OVERLAPPING OR TOUCHING THE CLAIMED RANGE ANTICIPATES IF THE PRIOR ART RANGE DISCLOSES THE CLAIMED RANGE WITH "SUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY"
- When the prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, but no specific examples falling within the claimed range are disclosed, a case by case determination must be made as to anticipation.
- In order to anticipate the claims, the claimed subject matter must be disclosed in the reference with "sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation under the statute."
- What constitutes a "sufficient specificity" is fact dependent. If the claims are directed to a narrow range, and the reference teaches a broad range, depending on the other facts of the case, it may be reasonable to conclude that the narrow range is not disclosed with "sufficient specificity" to constitute an anticipation of the claims.
See, e.g., Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp, 441 F.3d 991, 999, wherein the court held that a reference temperature range of 100-500 degrees C did not describe the claimed range of 330-450 degrees C with sufficient specificity to be anticipatory.
Further, while there was a slight overlap between the reference’s preferred range (150-350 degrees C) and the claimed range, that overlap was not sufficient for anticipation.
III. PRIOR ART WHICH TEACHES A VALUE OR RANGE THAT IS VERY CLOSE TO, BUT DOES NOT OVERLAP OR TOUCH, THE CLAIMED RANGE DOES NOT ANTICIPATE THE CLAIMED RANGE
- Anticipation under § 102 can be found only when the reference discloses exactly what is claimed and that where there are differences between the reference disclosure and the claim, the rejection must be based on § 103 which takes differences into account.
2131.04 Secondary Considerations
Evidence of secondary considerations, such as unexpected results or commercial success, is irrelevant to 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections and thus cannot overcome a rejection so based.
2131.05 Nonanalogous or Disparaging Prior Art
Arguments that the alleged anticipatory prior art is "nonanalogous art" or "teaches away from the invention" or is not recognized as solving the problem solved by the claimed invention, are not germane to a rejection under section 102.
A reference may be directed to an entirely different problem than the one addressed by the inventor, or may be from an entirely different field of endeavor than that of the claimed invention, yet the reference is still anticipatory if it explicitly or inherently discloses every limitation recited in the claims.
A reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it. The question whether a reference "teaches away" from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis.