Continguity & Anticipation

In In re Facebook (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Examiner rejected the claims as anticipated.  These claims require "image elements to be contiguous" based on a rule during a reshuffle event.  The prior art (Perrodin), on the other hand, does not require contiguity "in all cases."  In other words, a reshuffle might happen to result in contiguity but may not.  The Examiner and the PTAB both felt this was sufficient for anticipation (obviousness was not at issue here, but likely will be the next round!).  The Federal Circuit reversed: "Because Perrodin’s algorithm did not require contiguity in response to resizing or rearranging in all cases, but rather left open the possibility that cells would be left unfilled, Perrodin could not have disclosed the 'rule requiring the image elements to be contiguous'" as recited in the claims.  If the claims require an element, the prior art must also in order to anticipate.