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.
(B)    Enablement
(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.