{"section":{"filename":"s2122.html","chapter":"2100","section_number":"2122","title":"Discussion of Utility in the Prior Art","revision_tag":"R-01.2024","bytes":61050,"sha256":"f8cdb263317a6eae7fb33a0fb834c7e3476069b1cb2f885fb6eba81ba5034fab","subsection_count":0,"max_depth":0,"subsections":[]},"quality":"structured","cited_authorities":{"file_section":"2122","cases":[{"key":"case:964f.2d1122","slug":"in-re-schoenwald","short_name":"In re Schoenwald","canonical_citation":"In re Schoenwald, 964 F.2d 1122, 22 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 1992)","decision_year":1992,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A prior art reference anticipates a claim to an old compound if it identically discloses the compound and a process of making it; the reference need not disclose any utility for the compound.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["no utility need be disclosed for a reference to be anticipatory of a claim to an old compound"]},{"key":"case:468f.3d1366","slug":"impax-labs-inc-v-aventis-pharm-inc","short_name":"Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharm.Inc.","canonical_citation":"Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharm. Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 81 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2006)","decision_year":2006,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Proof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation; a reference anticipates if it describes the claimed invention in sufficient detail to enable a person of ordinary skill to carry it out.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["proof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation"]},{"key":"case:413f.3d1318","slug":"rasmusson-v-smithkline-beecham-corp","short_name":"Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.","canonical_citation":"Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 75 USPQ2d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","decision_year":2005,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Proof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for anticipation purposes; the description sufficient to anticipate a claim is a lower standard than the written description and enablement needed to support a claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]}],"statutes":[],"cross_references":[],"form_paragraphs":[]},"structured_data":{"nodes":[{"id":"se_xi6fhiuz","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_xi6fhiuz","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2122.html","source_anchor":"d0e201997","source_sha256":"f8cdb263317a6eae7fb33a0fb834c7e3476069b1cb2f885fb6eba81ba5034fab"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2122","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2122","section_number":"2122","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Discussion of Utility in the Prior Art","revision_tag":"R-01.2024","children_ids":["pb_ooxmoxl4","pb_4x4aqyv4"]},{"id":"pb_ooxmoxl4","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ooxmoxl4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b id=\"\">UTILITY NEED NOT BE DISCLOSED IN REFERENCE</b>","rendered_text_plain":"UTILITY NEED NOT BE DISCLOSED IN REFERENCE","provenance":{"source_file":"s2122.html","source_anchor":"d0e201997/b.0","source_sha256":"f8cdb263317a6eae7fb33a0fb834c7e3476069b1cb2f885fb6eba81ba5034fab"},"host_section_id":"se_xi6fhiuz","kind":"informal_heading","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"UTILITY NEED NOT BE DISCLOSED IN REFERENCE"},{"id":"pb_4x4aqyv4","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_4x4aqyv4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e202005\">In order to constitute anticipatory prior art, a reference must identically disclose the claimed compound, but no utility need be disclosed by the reference. <i>In re</i><i>Schoenwald,</i> 964 F.2d 1122, 1124, 22 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (The application claimed compounds used in ophthalmic compositions to treat dry eye syndrome. The examiner found a printed publication which disclosed the claimed compound but did not disclose a use for the compound. The court found that the claim was anticipated since the compound and a process of making it were taught by the reference. The court explained that “no utility need be disclosed for a reference to be anticipatory of a claim to an old compound.” It is enough that the claimed compound is taught by the reference.). See also <i>Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharm. Inc.,</i> 468 F.3d 1366, 1383, 81 USPQ2d 1001, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing <i>Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,</i> 413 F.3d 1318, 1326, 75 USPQ2d 1297, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); (“[P]roof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation.”).</p>","rendered_text_plain":"In order to constitute anticipatory prior art, a reference must identically disclose the claimed compound, but no utility need be disclosed by the reference. In reSchoenwald, 964 F.2d 1122, 1124, 22 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (The application claimed compounds used in ophthalmic compositions to treat dry eye syndrome. The examiner found a printed publication which disclosed the claimed compound but did not disclose a use for the compound. The court found that the claim was anticipated since the compound and a process of making it were taught by the reference. The court explained that “no utility need be disclosed for a reference to be anticipatory of a claim to an old compound.” It is enough that the claimed compound is taught by the reference.). See also Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharm. Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 1383, 81 USPQ2d 1001, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1326, 75 USPQ2d 1297, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); (“[P]roof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation.”).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2122.html","source_anchor":"d0e202005","source_sha256":"f8cdb263317a6eae7fb33a0fb834c7e3476069b1cb2f885fb6eba81ba5034fab"},"host_section_id":"se_xi6fhiuz","kind":"narrative"},{"id":"cs_buodu2si","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_buodu2si","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Schoenwald, 964 F.2d 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1992)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2122.html","source_anchor":"d0e202005","source_sha256":"f8cdb263317a6eae7fb33a0fb834c7e3476069b1cb2f885fb6eba81ba5034fab"},"short_name":"In re Schoenwald","all_citations":["964 F.2d 1122","22 USPQ2d 1671"],"canonical_citation":"In re Schoenwald, 964 F.2d 1122, 22 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 1992)","decision_year":1992,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"cs_2di4ripe","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_2di4ripe","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharm. Inc., 468 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2122.html","source_anchor":"d0e202005","source_sha256":"f8cdb263317a6eae7fb33a0fb834c7e3476069b1cb2f885fb6eba81ba5034fab"},"short_name":"Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharm. Inc.","all_citations":["468 F.3d 1366","81 USPQ2d 1001"],"canonical_citation":"Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharm. Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 81 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2006)","decision_year":2006,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"cs_zkyi4qmm","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_zkyi4qmm","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2122.html","source_anchor":"d0e202005","source_sha256":"f8cdb263317a6eae7fb33a0fb834c7e3476069b1cb2f885fb6eba81ba5034fab"},"short_name":"Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.","all_citations":["413 F.3d 1318","75 USPQ2d 1297"],"canonical_citation":"Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 75 USPQ2d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","decision_year":2005,"court":"Fed. Cir."}],"edges":[{"id":"e_d3bwrwhr","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4x4aqyv4","target_id":"cs_buodu2si","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Schoenwald, 964 F.2d 1122, 22 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 1992)","source_offset":{"start":158,"end":173},"pincite":"1124","parenthetical":"no utility need be disclosed for a reference to be anticipatory of a claim to an old compound"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2122.html","source_anchor":"d0e202005","source_sha256":"f8cdb263317a6eae7fb33a0fb834c7e3476069b1cb2f885fb6eba81ba5034fab"}},{"id":"e_agmyd6sx","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4x4aqyv4","target_id":"cs_2di4ripe","properties":{"citation_text":"Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharm. Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 81 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2006)","source_offset":{"start":774,"end":813},"pincite":"1383","signal":"see_also","parenthetical":"proof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2122.html","source_anchor":"d0e202005","source_sha256":"f8cdb263317a6eae7fb33a0fb834c7e3476069b1cb2f885fb6eba81ba5034fab"}},{"id":"e_4bj2ncwr","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_4x4aqyv4","target_id":"cs_zkyi4qmm","properties":{"citation_text":"Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 75 USPQ2d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","source_offset":{"start":882,"end":919},"pincite":"1326"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2122.html","source_anchor":"d0e202005","source_sha256":"f8cdb263317a6eae7fb33a0fb834c7e3476069b1cb2f885fb6eba81ba5034fab"}}]}}