Appellant AUBRUN-SONNEVILLE wins obviousness case

Ex parte ODILE AUBRUN-SONNEVILLE

As to anticipation


To achieve a composition meeting all of the limitations of claim 1,
however, a skilled worker would have to
choose parleam oil from the list of
preferred oils provided by Sonneville-A
ubrun. Anticipation does not allow
for such picking-and-choosing.
See
Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.
,
545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Ci
r. 2008) (“[U]nless a [p
rior art] reference
discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the
limitations claimed but also all of the
limitations arranged or combined in
the same way as recited in the clai
m, it cannot be said to prove prior
invention of the thing claimed and,
thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.”).



AND


In re Ochiai
, 71 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir.
1995) (A proper analysis under § 103 re
quires “a searching comparison of
the claimed invention – including all its
limitations – with the teachings of
the prior art.”).