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.
Because the district court’s instruction on the law of anticipation was legally
erroneous, we must next determine whether the error may have prejudiced the jury’s
verdict of “anticipation or obviousness.”
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the asserted claims would have
been obvious over Nankai as a matter of law. Because the jury could not have returned
a different verdict, the district court’s erroneous instruction on the law of anticipation
could not have changed the result.