Results for Anticipation
For a claim to be anticipated, each claim element must be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference, and the claimed arrangement or combination of those elements must also be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in that same prior art reference.
The Federal Circuit finds that the B.P.A.I. incorrectly construed the claim term “comprising”, further noting that the protocol of giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination is solely an examination expedient and does not include giving claims a legally incorrect interpretation.
The Federal Circuit holds that rewriting a dependent claim into independent form, coupled with the cancelation of its original independent claim, gives rise to prosecution history estoppel.
The court reversed the district court’s invalidity determination for two Prima Tek patents relating to floral arrangements. The asserted claims were anticipated by a reference that met the “without pot means” limitation, the “floral holding material” limitation, and the “crimping and overlapping fold” limitation. The district court interpreted the first two limitations too narrowly, and for the third, the reference inherently supplied the limitation.