No prima facie case of anticipation in Ex parte Ryan

The appellants won reversal in Ex parte Ryan


We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of anticipation. “It is well settled that a claim is anticipated if each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.” Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Here, claim 1 requires a stent structure comprising upper and lower flange portions that are each attached at first and second ends to the tubular body portion and comprise a generally U-shaped or a generally V-shaped structure. Yet, the Examiner has not explained how the asserted flange portion of Revuelta has a generally V- shaped structure or a generally U-shaped structure.
Thus, we reverse the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 6-9 and 13-17 as being anticipated by Revuelta.



Rejection under 102(e) reversed.