The following is an interesting but technical question in US patent
law.  I think you will need access to the Lexus database to answer it,
but I'm not sure.  In light of the high bid price of this question,
please make sure you understand it thoroughly before answering.
 
In US patent law, 35 USC 102 states that one prior art reference can
be used as a novelty reference against a claim in a patent (or patent
application).  35 USC 103 states that if you can't find one prior art
reference to invalidate the claim, then two or more prior art
references can be combined by the Examiner or by a court to show that
in light of the prior art, it would have been obvious to carry out the
invention, so the claim is therefore invalid.
 
My question is based on the following scenario (which I'm dealing with
right now!): Two journal articles, A and B, predate the filing of a
patent application by more than a year.  The writer of article A says
that he uses the technique described in article B.  If a patent has a
claim describing the use of two steps from article A and two steps
from article B, does this constitute a source for a rejection of the
claim under 35 USC 102 or under 35 USC 103?  I note that the patent is
claiming the use of the steps in articles A and B exactly as the
writer of article A intended for them to be used.  (In other words, it
is clear on the face of it that the claim in the patent should fall.)
 
I am basically only interested in citations of and quotations from US
case law that address this issue.  In other words, it will not help me
for you to tell me that it is your opinion that the claim falls for
lack of novelty (102), or because it is obvious (103).  I need,
for example, one (or preferably more) cases in which the court has
ruled that, in this general scenario, a claim is invalid under 35 USC
102 in light of the fact that one reference describes using the
techniques in a second reference.
 
For your reference, here is the text of the relevant portions of 35
USC 102 and 103:
35 USC 102 - A person shall be entitled to a patent unless - ...(b)
the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in
this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country,
more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in
the United States...
 
35 USC 103 - (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is
not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of
this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be
patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which
the invention was made.
 
As I said above, you will probably need to search in the Lexus
database.  Alternatively or additionally, you may find leads in MPEP
(perhaps MPEP 2131 or 2131.01, even though these deal with the
question of if a claim is invalid because it is *inherent* in a cited
reference, whereas my scenario is not, I think, one of inherency).
MPEP is available through Google or somewhere at www.uspto.gov.  A
simple quote from MPEP, however, is ***NOT*** sufficient, as MPEP only
reflects the policies of the USPTO, and may not necessarily be in
accordance with US case law (interestingly).
 
Good luck! 
dan89