In re Chudik, [2016-1817] (March 27, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s determination that claims 1, 15, 18, and 33\u201340 of U.S. Patent Application 11\/525,631 on an implant for shoulder replacement surgery were anticipated.<\/p>\n
The rejected claims required “a shell having a protruding surface on a first side arranged to engage the surface of a cavity formed in a glenoid extending between peripheral glenoid surfaces. \u00a0The PTAB affirmed the rejection because\u00a0claims did not require the recited surfaces engage the specified glenoid regions; rather they require only that the recited surfaces be arranged for such engagement.<\/p>\n
A patent claim is invalid for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 102 when a prior art reference describes each and every claim limitation and enables one of skill in the art to practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. \u00a0However, a prior art reference that must be distorted from its obvious design does not anticipate a patent claim.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Board found that because the surfaces of element of the prior art “can still be arranged to\u201d engage the glenoid regions, it anticipated the claims. \u00a0However the Federal Circuit rejected this finding, noting that while the claim\u00a0language could imply that the protruding surface on the flat side need not always actually engage the glenoid cavity surface, it must be at least capable of doing so. \u00a0The Federal Circuit found that the prior art\u00a0\u2019s protruding surface cannot be arranged to engage the glenoid cavity surface without reconfiguration. \u00a0The Federal Circuit said that prior art that \u201cmust be distorted from its obvious design\u201d does not anticipate a new invention.<\/p>\n
The Federal Circuit reached a similar result with respect to a second reference because this endeavor would constitute a significant and impermissible modification of the prior art.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In re Chudik, [2016-1817] (March 27, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s determination that claims 1, 15, 18, and 33\u201340 of U.S. Patent Application 11\/525,631 on an implant for shoulder replacement surgery were anticipated. The rejected claims required “a … Continue reading