In re Perricone: BPAI cites In re Best
From within the decision:
Where . . . the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product.... Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO‟s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.
In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (emphasis added.)
As to obviousness:
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Our mandate is to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise,clear,correct,and unambiguous. Onlyinthiswaycan uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).