Appeal 2007-1521
Application 10/694,584
22. Regarding claim 1, Oberthur argues that Becke relates "to a catalyst
system based on monoazadiene metal complexes," whereas Oberthur's
invention "relates to anti-aging agents based on organic compounds
containing conjugated azadiene groups, which are capable of providing
rubber vulcanisates [sic: vulcanizates] with long-term protection." (Br. at 9;
internal quotes omitted.)
23. Oberthur adds that its "formula (I) does not set forth a metal complex
and is not of the general Becke formula AmInM[monoazadiene]." (Br. at 10.)
24. Oberthur admits that Becke indicates that rubbers can be prepared.
(Br. at 10.)
25. Oberthur protests, however, that nowhere does Becke indicate or
suggest anti-aging properties for the monoazadiene complexes. (Br. at 11.)
26. Oberthur concludes that not every limitation of the claims is taught,
and that the rejection for anticipation should be reversed. (Br. at 11.)
27. With regard to claims 5 and 6, Oberthur essentially repeats his
argument, concluding that the azadiene anti-aging element of the present
claim "is simply not taught by Becke et al. and Becke fails to anticipate the
present claimed embodiment of the invention." (Br. at 12.)
28. Oberthur does not challenge the Examiner's findings that Becke
teaches the formation of a rubber in the presence of a vulcanizing agent.
C. Discussion
A claim is anticipated if a prior art reference describes every
limitation of a claim, either explicitly or implicitly. E.g., In re Schreiber,
128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). During
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013