CAFC discusses inherent anticipation in ParkerVision/Qualcomm case

Of the matter of inherent anticipation:



Only one claim limitation is in dispute here: “performing
a plurality of charging and discharging cycles of the
first and second capacitors to generate first and second
down-converted information signals across first and
second impedance devices, respectively.”12 ParkerVision
contends that DeMaw does not anticipate claim 18 because
it does not expressly teach the claim limitation of
“charging and discharging” capacitors to generate a
baseband signal. Anticipation, however, “can occur when
a claimed limitation is ‘inherent’ or otherwise implicit in
the relevant reference,” even though the reference does
not expressly teach that limitation. Standard Havens
Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369
(Fed. Cir. 1991), citing Tyler Refrigeration v. Kysor Indus.
Corp., 777 F.2d 687, 689 (Fed. Cir. 1985).



Cases involving inherent anticipation are counter-examples
to the "urban legend" that anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.

The CAFC also noted:


Thus, even though Figure 6.7 of DeMaw does not expressly
state that the capacitors engage in “charging and
discharging” to generate a baseband signal, Dr. Razavi’s
detailed testimony regarding the DeMaw circuit established
that charging and discharging is “implicit” in that
reference. ParkerVision sought to challenge Dr. Razavi’s
testimony in various respects on cross-examination, but
none of its questioning undermined Dr. Razavi’s explanation
of the operation of the DeMaw circuit and how Figure
6.7 of DeMaw corresponds to Figure 16H of the ’342
patent.
ParkerVision also challenged Dr. Razavi’s computer
simulations at trial, faulting him for assigning values to
certain components of the DeMaw circuit that were not
provided in DeMaw itself. Dr. Razavi admitted that
DeMaw does not disclose the values of certain capacitor
and inductor components; he explained, however, that he
used simulations only to “illustrate one or two effects [of
the DeMaw circuit],” and that the component values he
picked for the simulations did not affect his conclusion
that “DeMaw exactly matches the claim language.”



link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1612.Opinion.7-27-2015.1.PDF