Inherent Anticipation

In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, [04-1562, -1563, 1589](April 23, 2007)[RADER, Newman, Bryson] The Federal Circuit affirmed finding that claims of U.S> patent No. 6,013,281 were invalid for anticipation or obviousness.
SIGNIFICANCE: Inherent anticipation by prior art can occur even if those of ordinary skill in the art are unaware of the properties.
BRIEF: The Federal Circuit rejected the patentee's attempt to limit the claims to a temperature range disclosed in the specification, but not set forth in the claims. As to limitation of in situ formation of a barrier, the Federal Circuit recognized that a prior art reference without express reference to a claim limitation may nonetheless anticipate by inherency. Further, inherency is not coterminous with knowledge of those of ordinary skill int eh art. Artisans of ordinary skill may not recognize the inherent characteristics or functioning of the prior art. The recognition of an inherent attribute does not render the prior art patentable. The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art's function, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer. Judge Newman dissented, complaining about a new principle of inherency.