Summary: BPAI’s anticipation decision supported by substantial and affirmed.

Case: In re Reijers, No. 2014-1052 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2014) (non-precedential). On appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 11/718,322. Before Prost, Taranto and Chen, per curium.

Procedural Posture: Applicant appealed BPAI’s decision of anticipation. CAFC affirmed.

  • Anticipation: The CAFC found substantial evidence supports the BPAI’s conclusion that although the prior art did not expressly disclose each claimed limitation, it necessarily would produce the same effect and thus inherently disclosed it. Therefore, the CAFC affirmed the finding of anticipation.

Aryn Conrad