In re Seaborg (C5P23): Patent for element 95 (Am).
(A) Previous patent held by Fermi, discloses several nuclear reactors that create small amounts of Am. Patent doesn’t explicitly mention this, just scientific fact. Thus, must do inherent anticipation analysis, not regular anticipation.
(1) Fermi didn’t stress Am at all, we value the second patent. Doesn’t appear to enable it given Am in Fermi reaction is hard to detect, surrounded by junk from reactor.
(2) However, new patent does point to Fermi’s reactor as other way to produce it, partially resting on fact that Fermi didn’t point this out.
(C) Infringement/Anticipation Symmetry
(1) Since Fermi patent did not anticipate, Fermi won’t be infringing on Seaborg’s patent if he continues using his reactor.
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Patent Law Cases and are similar to What were the facts in the case In re Seaborg?. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.