was not teaching the use of the very same colors. “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co., 190 F.3d at 1347; see also, e.g., In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2002) (finding the claims of a patent inherently anticipated where the inventor “ha[d] done nothing more than recognizing properties inherent in certain prior art * * * ”); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed.Cir.1990) (“[M]erely discovering and claiming a new benefit of an old process cannot render the process again patentable.”); Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 782 (Fed.Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Because the colors disclosed in the three
holding that the patent in suit was not obvious because a combination may be patentable whether it be composed of elements all new partly new or all old citing connell and prior art did not suggest the solution to a recognized problem hit upon in the patent holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to the differential between their new and old wages recognizing risk of allowing patent holder to selfservingly make a reissue declaration that broadens the scope of the claims beyond what was intended by the inventor when the initial patent was first filed holding a technical term used in a patent document is interpreted as having the meaning that it would be given by persons experienced in the field of the invention unless it is apparent from the patent and the prosecution history that the inventor used the term with a different meaning holding that the claims of a patent were inherently anticipated where the inventor merely discovered new properties of an old alloy