Appeal 2007-0911
Application 10/058,808
rejections based on the arguments made in the Brief.1 Accordingly, we will
sustain the Examiner's rejections for the reasons set forth in the Answer, and
we add the following for emphasis only.
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997);
accord Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d
1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1995). However, anticipation by a prior art reference
does not require that the reference recognize either the inventive concept of
the claimed subject matter or the inherent properties that may be possessed
by the prior art reference. See Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co.,
814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S.
827 (1987).
Anticipation under this section is a factual determination. See In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1283 (Fed.
Cir. 1991) (citing In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567
(Fed. Cir. 1990).
Arguments not made in the Brief are considered to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) (2006).
§ 102(b) Rejection over Uemura
The Examiner has found that Uemura describes a ceramic fiber
comprising hafnium carbide (HfC), which described fiber anticipates the
1 Our references to the Brief in this Decision are to Appellants’ Brief filed
on March 17, 2006. The Reply Brief submitted on September 27, 2006 was
not entered for consideration by the Examiner as failing to comply with
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(a) (Communication mailed December 01, 2006).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013