2011-1376 | Omnilex

Full text

-- 1 of 21 --

IN RE MONTGOMERY 2
Before LOURIE, D YK , and PROST, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge D YK .
Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge LOURIE.
D YK , Circuit Judge.
Hugh Edward Montgomery, John Francis Martin, and
Jorge Daniel Erusalimsky (collectively, “Montgomery”)
appeal from a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences (“Board”) affirming the examiner’s rejection
of claims 42, 43, and 45 of U.S. Patent Application Serial
No. 11/118,824 (the “’824 application”) as anticipated. See
Ex parte Montgomery (“Rehearing Decision”), No. 2011-
000170, 2011 WL 514316 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 10, 2011); Ex
parte Montgomery (“Board Decision”), No. 2011-000170,
2010 WL 4719114 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 18, 2010). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Montgomery filed the ’824 application on April 29,
2005, claiming priority to United Kingdom applications
No. 9722026.3, filed October 17, 1997, and No. 9810855.8,
filed May 20, 1998. The application is directed to inhibi-
tors of the renin-angiotensin system (“RAS”), which is
“important in the maintenance and control of blood pres-
sure as well as the regulation of salt and water metabo-
lism.” J.A. 225. As the ’824 application’s specification
notes, RAS inhibitors have been administered to treat
high blood pressure, known as hypertension, and “it is
preferred . . . to use in the practice of the invention any of
the known RAS inhibitors which are either on the market
or under investigation for their antihypertensive effects.”
J.A. 231-32. These “known RAS inhibitors” include
angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (“ACE inhibi-
tors”) such as ramipril. J.A. 232. The specification is
largely directed to treating wasting diseases such as
cachexia, and to improving cardiovascular fitness and

-- 2 of 21 --

IN RE MONTGOMERY 3
physical endurance. Stroke treatment and prevention is
only mentioned in passing as a potential object of this
invention. See J.A. 230-31.
The claims at issue recite administering RAS inhibi-
tors to patients diagnosed as in need of stroke treatment
or prevention:
42. A method for the treatment or prevention of
stroke or its recurrence, wherein said method com-
prises administering, to a patient diagnosed as in
need of such treatment or prevention, an inhibitor
of the rennin-angiotensin system, said inhibitor
having a ClogP of greater than about 1.
43. The method as claimed in claim 42, wherein
the inhibitor of the rennin-angiotensin system
comprises at least one inhibitor of angiotensin-
converting enzyme.
45. The method as claimed in claim 43, wherein
the inhibitor of angiotensin-converting enzyme
comprises ramipril.
J.A. 1 (emphases added). The examiner rejected these
claims as anticipated by each of four prior art references:
AIRE,1 Frampton,2 HOPE,3 and Gohlke4 (as evidenced by
1 The Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE)
Study Investigators, Effect of Ramipril on Mortality and
Morbidity of Survivors of Acute Myocardial Infarction
with Clinical Evidence of Heart Failure, 342 Lancet 821
(1993) (“AIRE”); J.A. 7-14.
2 James E. Frampton & David H. Peters, Ramipril:
An Updated Review of Its Therapeutic Use in Essential
Hypertension and Heart Failure, 49 Drugs 440 (1995)
(abstract) (“Frampton”); J.A. 45-48.
3 The HOPE Study Investigators, The HOPE (Heart
Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) Study: The Design of a
Large, Simple Randomized Trial of an Angiotensin-
Converting Enzyme Inhibitor (Ramipril) and Vitamin E in

-- 3 of 21 --

IN RE MONTGOMERY 4
Richer5), all of which describe the administration of
ramipril to subjects at risk of stroke.6
Hypertension is a known risk factor for stroke. Board
Decision, 2010 WL 4719114, at *4. AIRE describes a
study in which about 2000 “patients who had shown
clinical evidence of heart failure,” many of whom suffered
from hypertension, were treated with ramipril or a pla-
cebo. AIRE at 821-22. In particular, 289 (29%) of the
patients receiving ramipril had hypertension. Id. at 822.
The study found “overall a 27% reduction in the risk of
death” and a 19% reduction in the risk of “the first vali-
dated event in any individual patient—namely, death,
reinfarction, stroke, or development of severe/resistant
heart failure,” and both results were “highly significant
statistically.” Id. at 824. The data on stroke were not
statistically significant: “The incidence of stroke was
higher in the active drug group but the numbers were
small and an adverse effect of the drug can be neither
supported nor refuted.” Id. at 826. Frampton summa-
rizes AIRE and other “large-scale noncomparative stud-
Patients at High Risk of Cardiovascular Events, 12 Can.
J. Cardiology 127 (1996) (“HOPE”); J.A. 58-68.
4 Peter Gohlke et al., Angiotensin-Converting En-
zyme Inhibition Improves Cardiac Function, 23 Hyperten-
sion 411 (1994) (“Gohlke”); J.A. 49-56.
5 C. Richer et al., Antihypertensive Drugs in the
Stroke-Prone Spontaneously Hypertensive Rat, 19 Clinical
& Experimental Hypertension 925 (1997) (abstract),
available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9247765
(“Richer”); J.A. 85.
6 As the claims themselves state, ramipril is “an in-
hibitor of the rennin-angiotensin system” and an “inhibi-
tor of angiotensin-converting enzyme.” J.A. 1. And the
Board found, and Montgomery does not contest, that
“[t]he ClogP properties recited in the claim[s] [are] inher-
ently present in ramipril.” Board Decision, 2010 WL
4719114, at *2.

-- 4 of 21 --

IN RE MONTGOMERY 5
ies” and explains that “[t]he antihypertensive efficacy of
ramipril has been confirmed” by these studies. J.A. 45.
HOPE describes the design of “a large, simple ran-
domized trial of . . . ramipril . . . and vitamin E . . . in the
prevention of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovas-
cular death,” which recruited “[o]ver 9000 [patients] at
high risk for cardiovascular events such as myocardial
infarction and stroke.” HOPE at 127. HOPE discloses
that at the time of its publication, all 9541 patients had
been randomized and had been receiving ramipril or a
placebo for at least one month.7 (The HOPE study ulti-
mately found that patients receiving ramipril had a
statistically significant reduction in the risk of stroke,8
but these results were not published until after Montgom-
ery’s priority date and thus are irrelevant to an anticipa-
tion analysis.)
7 HOPE was published in Feburary 1996, and “[a]s
of January 1, 1996 the study [had] completed randomizing
9541 patients.” Id. at 134. Patients were “given seven to
10 days of 2.5 mg active ramipril” prior to randomization.
Id. at 132. Each patient was then randomized individu-
ally “by a telephone call to a central office,” after which
“the patient [was] randomized to ramipril (2.5 mg for one
week, then 5 mg every day for three weeks) or matching
placebo,” and was “given a date for a first follow-up visit
(one month plus or minus one week) after which the dose
of ramipril [was] increased to 10 mg daily.” Id. This
protocol demonstrates that prior to HOPE’s publication,
every patient randomized to ramipril received at least 2.5
mg ramipril daily for one week and 5 mg daily for three
weeks.
8 See The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation
Study Investigators, Effects of an Angiotensin-Converting-
Enzyme Inhibitor, Ramipril, on Cardiovascular Events in
High-Risk Patients, 342 New Eng. J. Med. 145, 148 tbl.3
(2000).

-- 5 of 21 --

IN RE MONTGOMERY 6
Finally, Gohlke describes a study of “the effects of . . .
ramipril on functional and biochemical cardiac parame-
ters in stroke-prone spontaneously hypertensive rats,”
which found that the treatment “improves cardiac func-
tion even at low doses.” Gohlke at 411. Richer further
explains that “[t]he stroke-prone spontaneously hyperten-
sive rat . . . is an experimental model that has been widely
used to investigate the potential preventive effects vs
stroke and mortality of numerous antihypertensive
agents. Among the latter, angiotensin I-converting en-
zyme inhibitors, angiotensin II AT1-receptor blockers and
calcium antagonists have proven to be very effective.”
J.A. 85.
The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of all
three claims as anticipated by each of these prior art
references. Board Decision, 2010 WL 4719114, at *12.
The Board found that claim 42 has two elements: (1) “to
administer an inhibitor of the rennin-angiotensin sys-
tem,” and (2) “the patient population receiving the inhibi-
tor . . . encompasses patients diagnosed as required stroke
treatment or prevention.” Id. at *4. The Board explained
that each reference teaches administration of ramipril to
stroke-prone patients: “AIRE identified patients with
hypertension who are known to be at risk of stroke, and
treated this patient population with ramipril,” “Frampton
teaches treatment of hypertensive patients with ramipril”
(where “hypertension is a known ‘risk factor for stroke’”),
“the HOPE study was clearly enabled to treat patients,
including patients with previous stroke, with ramipril,”
and Gohlke “identif[ies] the rats, here reasonably inter-
preted as the patients, as ‘stroke-prone’ and then teaches
administering ramipril to the rats.” Id. at *4, 7, 9, 10-11.
While the Board did not rule directly on whether
Montgomery’s claims required that the administration be
effective at treating or preventing stroke, it appeared to

-- 6 of 21 --

IN RE MONTGOMERY 7
assume that they did include such a requirement. The
Board rejected Montgomery’s argument that none of the
references demonstrated that ramipril actually treats or
prevents stroke, noting that ramipril inherently treats or
prevents stroke, and “[i]t matters not that those of ordi-
nary skill heretofore may not have recognized these
inherent characteristics.” Id. at *4 (quoting In re Cruci-
ferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2002))
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Montgomery filed a request for rehearing, arguing
that AIRE and Frampton did not teach administration to
patients diagnosed as at risk of stroke because stroke is
only one of the afflictions caused by hypertension; that
HOPE was merely a proposal for future research that was
not enabled; and that Gohlke could not anticipate because
the claim term “patient” should be limited to human
beings. See Request for Rehearing, In re Montgomery, No.
2011-000170 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 24, 2011). The Board declined
to modify its original decision. Rehearing Decision, 2011
WL 514316, at *4. The Board noted that “[i]t does not
matter whether [AIRE] appreciated that . . . treatment
[with ramipril], which was undisputedly actually per-
formed on 289 patients with hypertension and 230 pa-
tients with previous myocardial infarct, would treat or
prevent stroke,” and that HOPE “was clearly enabled to
treat patients, including patients with previous stroke,
with ramipril.” Id. at *2.
Montgomery timely appealed, and we have jurisdic-
tion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
D ISCUSSION
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, we review
the Board’s legal conclusions without deference and set
aside conclusions that are “not in accordance with law,”
and we review its findings of fact to determine if they are

-- 7 of 21 --

IN RE MONTGOMERY 8
“unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2);
see Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 162-65 (1999).
“Determining whether claims are anticipated involves
a two-step analysis. The first step involves construction
of the claims of the patent at issue. Claim construction is
a question of law reviewed de novo.” In re Aoyama, 656
F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “During examination,
‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . .
claim language should be read in light of the specification
as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art.’” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (quoting In re
Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). The broadest
reasonable interpretation, like claim construction in the
infringement context, is a question of law that we review
de novo. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1274 (Fed. Cir.
2011). “The second step [of an anticipation analysis]
involves comparing the claims to the prior art. Anticipa-
tion is a question of fact reviewed for substantial evi-
dence.” In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d at 1296. A prior art
reference anticipates a patent claim under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) if it discloses every claim limitation. Verizon
Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325,
1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A reference may anticipate
inherently if a claim limitation that is not expressly
disclosed “is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single
anticipating reference.” Id. at 1337 (quoting Schering
Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed.
Cir. 2003)) (internal quotation mark omitted). The inher-
ent result must inevitably result from the disclosed steps;
“[i]nherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or
possibilities.” Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc.,
661 F.3d 629, 639 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Oelrich,
666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981)).

-- 8 of 21 --

IN RE MONTGOMERY 9
The contested elements of claim 45 are the admini-
stration of ramipril (1) “to a patient diagnosed as in need
of [stroke] treatment or prevention,” (2) where such
administration is “for the treatment or prevention of
stroke or its recurrence.”9 We thus determine de novo the
broadest reasonable interpretation of each of these re-
quirements. Because we conclude that HOPE discloses
both requirements, we need not address Montgomery’s
arguments concerning AIRE, Frampton, and Gohlke.
We first examine the requirement that the admini-
stration be “to a patient diagnosed as in need of [stroke]
treatment or prevention.” Montgomery does not contest
that the patients in HOPE satisfy this claim requirement.
HOPE explicitly disclosed the administration of ramipril
to patients “at high risk for cardiovascular events such as
myocardial infarction and stroke,” and the eligibility
criteria included patients with previous stroke. HOPE at
127-28. We see no error in the Board’s uncontested
conclusion that HOPE discloses the administration of
ramipril to patients diagnosed as in need of stroke treat-
ment or prevention.
We next turn to the preamble requirement that the
method be “for the treatment or prevention of stroke or its
recurrence.” The Board did not rule directly on whether
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims
required that the treatment or prevention be effective or
whether it was sufficient that the administration be
9 Montgomery does not dispute that a prior art ref-
erence that anticipates claim 45 (describing the admini-
stration of ramipril) necessarily anticipates claims 43
(describing the administration of “at least one inhibitor of
angiotensin-converting enzyme”) and claim 42 (describing
the administration of “an inhibitor of the rennin-
angiotensin system, said inhibitor having a ClogP of
greater than about 1”).

-- 9 of 21 --

IN RE MONTGOMERY 10
designed to treat or prevent stroke.10 But in resting the
decision on inherency, the Board appeared to assume that
the patent included an efficacy requirement.
We are skeptical that a proper interpretation of the
claims would include an efficacy requirement. In Bristol-
Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., we
construed a similar method-of-treatment claim—involving
“[a] method for reducing hematologic toxicity” by adminis-
tering taxol to a cancer patient—and held that it “merely
express[ed] a purpose of reducing hematologic toxicity”
rather than requiring a particular result. 246 F.3d 1368,
1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Such a construction is even
more appropriate here in the examination context, where
we apply the “broadest reasonable interpretation consis-
tent with the specification.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364. Nothing in the ’824 specification
suggests that a narrower construction is appropriate: the
specification does not describe any studies that show that
RAS inhibitors are effective for stroke treatment or pre-
vention, see J.A. 224-52, thus also suggesting that the
claims do not incorporate such a requirement, see Phillips
v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
banc) (“[C]laims must be read in view of the specification,
of which they are a part.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
10 The Board at first seemed to assume that efficacy
was not a requirement by not including efficacy in its
description of the “two elements” of the claims and by
stating that “[a]ll that is required by claims 42, 43 and 45
is identifying a patient in need of the treatment, and
administering ramipril to that patient,” with no mention
of efficacy. Board Decision, 2010 WL 4719114, at *4, *9.
But the Board then referred to the “preamble requirement
of the claim to treat or prevent stroke,” id. at *9, suggest-
ing that efficacy is a requirement.

-- 10 of 21 --

IN RE MONTGOMERY 11
We need not resolve this question, however, for we
agree with the Board that even if the claim includes an
efficacy requirement, efficacy is inherent in carrying out
the claim steps. See Rehearing Decision, 2011 WL
514316, at *2. We agree with the dissent that a result is
only inherent if it inevitably flows from the prior art
disclosure, but there is no question here that treating
stroke-prone patients with ramipril does in fact inevitably
treat or prevent stroke. And Montgomery does not dis-
pute that ramipril is in fact effective at preventing or
treating stroke, which is the entire premise of his pat-
ent.11
We have repeatedly held that “[n]ewly discovered re-
sults of known processes directed to the same purpose are
not patentable because such results are inherent.” Bris-
tol-Myers Squibb, 246 F.3d at 1376. As we stated in
Cruciferous Sprout, 301 F.3d at 1350, “[i]t matters not
that those of ordinary skill heretofore may not have
recognized the[] inherent characteristics of the [prior
art].”
11 Montgomery contends that AIRE teaches that
ramipril increases the risk of stroke because 2.5% of
patients receiving ramipril suffered a stroke compared
with 1.7% of patients receiving the placebo. As discussed
previously, however, these results were not statistically
significant, so AIRE does not teach anything about the
correlation between ramipril and stroke risk; indeed,
AIRE explicitly states that “an adverse effect of the drug
can be neither supported nor refuted.” AIRE at 826. In
any case, “the question whether a reference ‘teaches away’
from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation
analysis.” Bristol-Myers Squibb, 246 F.3d at 1378 (quot-
ing Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d
1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998)) (internal quotation mark
omitted).

-- 11 of 21 --

IN RE MONTGOMERY 12
In King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616
F.3d 1267, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2010), one of the claims covered
“a method of increasing the oral bioavailability of metax-
alone” by “administering to the patient a therapeutically
effective amount of metaxalone in a pharmaceutical
composition with food.” We noted that according to the
patent itself, “the natural result of taking metaxalone
with food is an increase in the bioavailability of the drug,”
and that “[t]he prior art discloses taking metaxalone with
food,” so the preamble was “inherently anticipated.” Id.
at 1275-76. Similarly, in Cruciferous Sprout, the claims
at issue included “[a] method of preparing a food product
rich in glucosinolates, comprising germinated cruciferous
seeds . . . and harvesting sprouts prior to the 2-leaf stage,
to form a food product comprising a plurality of sprouts.”
301 F.3d at 1345. We agreed that “rich in glucosinolates”
is a claim limitation, but found the claims inherently
anticipated because the patentee merely recognized
properties that “necessarily have existed as long as
sprouts themselves.” Id. at 1347, 1350.
HOPE discloses a protocol for the administration of
ramipril to stroke-prone patients, and administering
ramipril to stroke-prone patients inevitably treats or
prevents stroke. See HOPE at 127. Thus, HOPE inher-
ently anticipates the claims at issue.
However, Montgomery urges that inherent anticipa-
tion requires that the claimed method have been actually
performed, and that HOPE does not disclose actual per-
formance of the method. This is not correct; HOPE re-
veals the actual administration of ramipril for treatment
or prevention of stroke.12 In any event, even if HOPE
12 Montgomery argues that HOPE only involved ac-
tual administration of low dosages of ramipril, and that
HOPE fails to disclose actual administration in an

-- 12 of 21 --

IN RE MONTGOMERY 13
merely proposed the administration of ramipril for treat-
ment or prevention of stroke (without actually doing so), it
would still anticipate. Our cases have expressly rejected
Montgomery’s argument. For example, in Schering, 339
F.3d at 1381, we held that a prior art patent that dis-
closed administering loratadine to a patient inherently
anticipated a patent for a metabolite of loratadine because
the inherent result of administering loratadine to a pa-
tient is the formation of the metabolite. We stated that
anticipation “requires only an enabling disclosure,” not
“actual creation or reduction to practice,” so that “actual
administration of loratadine to patients [in the prior art]
is irrelevant”—the prior art patent inherently anticipated
as long as it “disclose[d] in an enabling manner the ad-
ministration of loratadine to patients.” Id. at 1380; see
also SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d
1331, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding a chemical patent
inherently anticipated and stating that it was irrelevant
whether the inherently disclosed chemical was ever
actually produced).
amount sufficient for treatment or prevention. We dis-
agree. Before HOPE’s publication date, all the patients in
the HOPE study were given “seven to 10 days of 2.5 mg
active ramipril,” and the patients randomized to ramipril
received “2.5 mg [ramipril] for one week, then 5 mg every
day for three weeks.” HOPE at 132. Moreover, Frampton
discloses that “large-scale noncomparative studies”
showed that “85% of patients with mild to moderate
essential hypertension have responded successfully to
treatment with ramipril 2.5 or 5 mg/day.” J.A. 45. Thus,
even if the HOPE authors did not appreciate it, their
actual administration of ramipril treated or ameliorated
hypertension, which as Montgomery acknowledges, is a
risk factor for stroke. In effect, therefore, HOPE inher-
ently discloses reducing the risk of stroke (i.e., teaches
“stroke prevention”) and thus inherently anticipates the
claims at issue.

-- 13 of 21 --

IN RE MONTGOMERY 14
To be sure, as the dissent points out, “[a]n invitation
to investigate is not an inherent disclosure.” Metabolite
Labs., Inc. v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, 370 F.3d 1354,
1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004).13 But HOPE’s protocol for the
administration of ramipril is far from an abstract the-
ory—it is an advanced stage of testing designed to secure
regulatory approval. HOPE was designed to obtain data
for submission to regulatory agencies on the effect of
ramipril on cardiovascular diseases including stroke
based on substantial evidence that ramipril improved
cardiovascular health, including by treating stroke risk
factors such as hypertension. See HOPE at 128. It is well
established that a patent may be secured, and typically is
secured, before the conclusion of clinical trials. See Eli
Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 619 F.3d 1329,
1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (rejecting an enablement
challenge to patents that were filed while clinical trial
results were pending); Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure § 2107.03 (8th ed., rev. 6, Sept. 2007) (“[I]f an
applicant has initiated human clinical trials for a thera-
peutic product or process, [Patent & Trademark] Office
personnel should presume that the applicant has estab-
lished that the subject matter of that trial is reasonably
predictive of having the asserted therapeutic utility.”). In
all relevant respects, HOPE is identical to the patent
itself, which does not disclose actual results from the
administration of ramipril for these purposes.14 Mont-
13 For example, a document that recited administra-
tion of all known compounds for treatment of all known
diseases, with no evidence that any of these treatments
would be effective, would not inherently anticipate all
method-of-treatment claims involving those compounds
and diseases.
14 Montgomery’s specification disclosed small ran-
domized trials of the effect of losartan on muscle fatigue
in military recruits and the effect of enalapril on cachexia

-- 14 of 21 --

IN RE MONTGOMERY 15
gomery conceded at oral argument that HOPE’s authors
could have obtained the patent claims at issue based the
HOPE reference, so it cannot be that this reference fails
to anticipate.15
We thus affirm the rejection of claims 42, 43, and 45
of the ’824 application as anticipated by HOPE. Because
we affirm the Board’s decision on this ground, we need
not reach the issue of whether the claims are anticipated
by the other prior art considered by the Board.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
(wasting disease) in patients with heart failure. See J.A.
247-52. The specification does not disclose any clinical
studies showing the effect of ACE inhibitors on stroke, nor
does it disclose any plans for such studies. In this respect,
Montgomery’s specification teaches even less than HOPE
does about the administration of ramipril for stroke
treatment or prevention.
15 Oral Argument at 10:24, available at http://
www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/2011-
1376/all (Court: “Couldn’t the HOPE people have gotten a
patent based on the prior art reference that’s here?
Couldn’t they have applied and gotten a patent just as
you could have?” Counsel for Montgomery: “Yes, they
could have.”). We do not have before us the question
whether HOPE or Montgomery sufficiently demonstrated
utility to secure a patent. See generally In re ’318 Patent
Infringement Litig., 583 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(holding that the method of treatment claims at issue
were not enabled “because the . . . patent’s application did
not establish utility”).

-- 15 of 21 --

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
__________________________
(Serial No. 11/118,824)
IN RE HUGH EDWARD MONTGOMERY,
JOHN FRANCIS MARTIN, and JORGE DANIEL
ERUSALIMSKY
__________________________
2011-1376
__________________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
__________________________
LOURIE, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to
affirm the rejection by the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (“PTO”) of pending claims 42, 43, and
45 for anticipation by inherency.
Inherency is a very tricky concept in patent law. Its
salutary goal is to prevent subject matter that is effec-
tively in the public’s possession from being retrieved by a
patent and withdrawn from the public domain. On the
other hand, its downside is withholding patent protection
from that which the public knew nothing about until a
later inventor found it. A case cited by the majority,
Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373
(Fed. Cir. 2003), illustrates the problem. A claimed
compound not known to the art was held to be anticipated
by inherency when it was found to be a metabolite of a

-- 16 of 21 --

IN RE MONTGOMERY 2
prior art compound. Of course, many compounds admin-
istered to humans and animals do metabolize in some
manner rather than being fully excreted as such. In
Schering, however, the prior art (1) did not disclose the
later-claimed metabolite; (2) did not disclose any of the
prior art compound’s metabolites; and (3) did not even
disclose that the prior art compound could metabolize
upon administration. Id. at 1376. On those facts, the
court nonetheless concluded that the later-claimed com-
pound was necessarily “in the public’s possession,” and
thus was anticipated by inherency. Id. at 1380 (internal
quotation marks omitted); see also Schering Corp. v.
Geneva Pharm., Inc., 348 F.3d 992, 995–96 (Fed. Cir.
2003) (Lourie, J., dissenting from denial of petition for
rehearing en banc).
An unbounded concept of inherency, as Schering illus-
trates, threatens to stymie innovation by withdrawing
from the realm of patentability that which has not before
been known, used, or benefited from. Properly under-
stood, anticipation by inherency is far more limited. See
Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U.S. 707, 711 (1880) (declining
to find anticipation by inherency where a skilled artisan
“certainly never derived the least hint” of the claimed
process from the prior art). Nevertheless, recent cases
have followed Schering’s expansive holding. See, e.g.,
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d
1331, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Whether the majority’s
holding in the present case will have a serious adverse
effect on innovation is unclear, but I believe that the
majority has found inherency where it does not exist.
The keystone of the inherency doctrine is inevitabil-
ity. For anticipation by inherency, a later-claimed inven-
tion must have necessarily resulted from the practice of a
prior art reference. Our precedent has been steadfast in
this strict requirement of inevitability. See, e.g., Bettcher

-- 17 of 21 --

IN RE MONTGOMERY 3
Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“Inherency . . . may not be established by
probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain
thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not
sufficient.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Hansgirg
v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214 (CCPA 1939) (same).
Absent inevitability, inherency does not follow even from
a very high likelihood that a prior art method will result
in the claimed invention. See, e.g., Glaxo Inc. v. Novo-
pharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding
that even though the defendant’s experts reproduced a
prior art method “thirteen times and each time they made
[the claimed] crystals,” the patentee’s chemists twice
produced different crystals from the same method, thus
precluding inherency).
Were inevitability not required for inherency, a mere
proposal for further experimentation could anticipate a
claimed invention. That is not the law, however. There is
nothing inevitable about a proposal. On this point, our
precedent is straightforward: “An invitation to investi-
gate is not an inherent disclosure.” Metabolite Labs., Inc.
v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, 370 F.3d 1354, 1367 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). This maxim applies a fortiori in arts necessi-
tating laboratory research, clinical studies, and other
trial-and-error experimentation. In the unpredictable
arts, rarely if ever will an untested proposal necessitating
further study and optimization meet the stringent inevi-
tability requirement of inherent anticipation. Although a
patent should not be awarded if a claimed invention is
previously described in a printed publication or patent, or
obvious thereover, innovation should not be impeded by
mere speculation.
On the facts of this case, none of the four cited refer-
ences describes the claimed invention or the practice of a
method that inherently, necessarily, carries out the

-- 18 of 21 --

IN RE MONTGOMERY 4
claimed processes. The claims at issue recite a method for
the treatment or prevention of stroke or its recurrence
comprising administering ramipril to a patient diagnosed
as in need of such treatment or prevention. As the major-
ity acknowledges, the references do not expressly disclose
this claimed method. Nor is the claimed method an
inherent result of carrying out what the references de-
scribe.
The HOPE paper, the only reference relied on by the
majority, describes a plan designed to administer a com-
bination of ramipril and vitamin E to patients at risk of a
major vascular event including myocardial infarction,
stroke, or death from cardiovascular disease. But HOPE
(an acronym for Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation)
truly expresses only a hope, not achievement of that hope.
The HOPE paper itself states that it discloses only the
“design of a . . . trial.” J.A. 58. The results of a proposed
study—involving the administration of two therapeutic
agents over four years to more than 9,000 patients with
varied medical histories in 267 hospitals across nineteen
countries—are neither predictable nor inevitable. J.A. 58,
60, 63. Indeed, the HOPE study provides specific criteria
for “early termination” if the proposed treatment is inef-
fective. J.A. 65. Inherency follows from the carrying out
of an activity that inherently produces what is claimed;
inherency does not arise from a plan whose description
does not indicate its realization.
The majority states that HOPE discloses a “protocol”
for the administration of ramipril. Majority Op. at 12.
The fact that HOPE is a planned study, therefore, is not
in dispute. The majority’s conclusion, however, rests on
its finding that such administration, if carried out, would
inherently treat or prevent stroke. That finding is un-
supported by the record. As the majority correctly notes,
the results of the planned HOPE study, published in the

-- 19 of 21 --

IN RE MONTGOMERY 5
New England Journal of Medicine years after Montgom-
ery’s priority date and not of record in this case, are
“irrelevant to an anticipation analysis.” Majority Op. at
5. Nevertheless, to the extent that the majority’s reason-
ing was infected by its consideration of this non-record
evidence, it is worth noting two things. First, the authors
of the New England Journal of Medicine paper acknowl-
edge having subsequently altered the prior art HOPE
study design “to account for the impact of a possible lag
before treatment had its full effect,” thus demonstrating
that the prior art HOPE study was, at best, a plan subject
to modification. See The Heart Outcomes Prevention
Evaluation Study Investigators, Effects of an Angiotensin-
Converting-Enzyme Inhibitor, Ramipril, on Cardiovascu-
lar Events in High-Risk Patients, 342 New Eng. J. Med.
145, 146 (2000). Second, that the results of the HOPE
study merited publication in the New England Journal of
Medicine, a prestigious and selective peer-reviewed medi-
cal journal of the highest caliber, strongly imply that the
study’s results were anything but preordained.
The majority further states that even if HOPE merely
proposed administering ramipril for treatment or preven-
tion of stroke (without actually doing so), it would still
anticipate. Majority Op. at 12–13. The majority’s view is
flawed. A description of a process, even if not carried out,
is an anticipation of that process. But a mere description
of a process that, if it had been carried out, might yield a
particular undisclosed result is not an inherent anticipa-
tion of that result. Stated somewhat differently, inher-
ency requires description of action that inevitably
produces a result, not merely description of action that
might have been carried out, but was not, and might have
yielded a particular result, but did not. The HOPE refer-
ence is only a description of what has not been carried
out; whether or not, if carried out, it would inherently

-- 20 of 21 --

IN RE MONTGOMERY 6
accomplish the claimed result is not before us, for HOPE
is only a plan.
As the majority notes, HOPE does expressly disclose
an actual administration of a low dose of ramipril for a
short time period as part of an initial “randomization”
step. But there is no evidence in the record to prove that
HOPE discloses administration sufficient to inevitably
treat or prevent stroke, and the PTO does not argue
otherwise. HOPE, therefore, clearly fails to describe any
administration of ramipril at a dose and for a period of
time that would inherently lower the risk of stroke.
Because the majority rests its decision only on HOPE,
I will not discuss the shortcomings of the other references
cited by the PTO, but, as indicated above, in my view they
also fail to anticipate the claimed invention, either ex-
pressly or by inherency.
Finally, the majority appears to criticize the disclo-
sure of Montgomery’s application. It must be noted that
the only ground of rejection by the Board, and thus the
only ground of rejection properly before us on appeal, is
anticipation by inherency. Whether Montgomery’s pend-
ing claims are patentable on other grounds, such as
enablement or obviousness, must be dealt with by the
PTO in the first instance.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.

-- 21 of 21 --

Federal Circuit disposition — 2011-1376

Full text

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude