context: The prior art need not present the invention in a positive light, so long as all claims are explicitly or inherently contained in the publication.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 713 F.2d 760, 772
citation_a.parenthetical: "The law of anticipation does not require that the reference 'teach' what the subject patent teaches."
citation_a.sentence: See Celeritas, 150 F.3d at 1361 (“A reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it .... the question of whether a reference ‘teaches away’ from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis.”); see also Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed.Cir.1983), overruled on other grounds, SRI Intern, v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107 (Fed.Cir.1985) (“The law of anticipation does not require that the reference ‘teach’ what the subject patent teaches.”); Merck & Co. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 19 F.Supp.2d 334, 345-46 (E.D.Pa.1998); see generally Lance L. Barry, Teaching A Way Is Not Teaching Away, 79 J. Pat. & Trade. Off. Soc’y 867, 869 (1997) (a reference teaches away when “it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 150 F.3d 1361, 1361
citation_b.parenthetical: "A reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it .... the question of whether a reference 'teaches away' from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis."
citation_b.sentence: See Celeritas, 150 F.3d at 1361 (“A reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it .... the question of whether a reference ‘teaches away’ from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis.”); see also Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed.Cir.1983), overruled on other grounds, SRI Intern, v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107 (Fed.Cir.1985) (“The law of anticipation does not require that the reference ‘teach’ what the subject patent teaches.”); Merck & Co. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 19 F.Supp.2d 334, 345-46 (E.D.Pa.1998); see generally Lance L. Barry, Teaching A Way Is Not Teaching Away, 79 J. Pat. & Trade. Off. Soc’y 867, 869 (1997) (a reference teaches away when “it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant.”).