With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: holding that the claims of a patent were inherently anticipated where the inventor merely discovered new properties of an old alloy
C: holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to the differential between their new and old wages
D: 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
B.