Ex parte Belinne

Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When an examiner has made specific, explicit fact findings mapping each argued claim limitation to identified teachings of the reference, an appellant who merely restates claim language and asserts that the elements are missing from the reference has not shown error, and the Board will affirm the anticipation rejection. The burden on appeal is on the appellant to demonstrate error in the examiner's position, and arguments not presented in the brief are refused consideration absent good cause. No prior precedent directly addressed this issue in the text; the decision cites no prior Board decision. For the examiner, a detailed, limitation-by-limitation finding tied to specific reference passages (column and line cites and explanatory bracketed notes) is enough to carry the rejection against a conclusory response. For appellants, bare statements that a reference does not teach claim limitations are treated as no showing of error, and unargued points are waived. The Board relied on In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006), for the appellant's burden to demonstrate error, and on Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2005), for the anticipation standard. LEGAL TEST OR STANDARD: Appellants have the burden on appeal to demonstrate error in the Examiner's position, so the Board looks to the briefs to show error in the Examiner's proffered prima facie case. Anticipation requires a single reference that discloses, expressly or inherently, each claim limitation. The Board weighed as a whole the appellants' unexplained arguments that elements are missing against the Examiner's specific and detailed findings. Arguments not presented in the brief are refused consideration absent good cause (37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii)). TRIGGERING FACTS: The Examiner rejected claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) over Lee and made extensive, specific findings on each argued claim, citing figures and column and line passages of Lee and explanatory notes. Appellants' briefs only restated claim elements and said Lee does not teach or suggest them, with no explanation of why the findings were wrong, and made no other arguments for claims 1, 7, 2, 8 and 14. KEY QUOTE: "Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error in the Examiner's position." (p. 2) PRIOR PRECEDENT AFFECTED: No prior precedential or informative decision is directly affected. The Board follows In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006), on the appellant's burden, and cites Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2005), on anticipation. PRACTICE TIP: In an appeal brief, do not just recite claim limitations and assert that the reference lacks them; identify the specific examiner finding that is wrong and explain why, for each limitation and claim argued, or the argument will be treated as waived or unpersuasive.