Opinion ID: 1086342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Requestor Misconduct

Text: Garrido next argues that because the reexamination proceeding was tainted by misconduct, the Board was obliged to reverse its decision rejecting the ’703 claims. Garrido alleges that Holt “lied in at least 27 different instances about the content of the references, their meaning, or both.” Appellant’s Br. at 8. The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to address these allegations. We do not reach the jurisdictional issue, however, because Garrido provides no support for concluding that any misconduct occurred. He does not give a single example in his opening brief. Attached to his reply brief is a list of various statements that he contends are false, but he does no more than allege in a conclusory fashion that they are false. To the extent we understand his arguments, the alleged “misconduct” appears to be no more than disagreement over what is disclosed in the prior art. Mere disagreement between the parties is not evidence of misconduct. See Dexter Fastner Tech., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., Nos. 96-6421, 9696519, 1998 WL 199814, at  (6th Cir. Apr. 14, 1998) (affirming that “considerable evidence of disagreement between the parties” alone does not amount to misconduct). In any case, arguments made for the first time in a reply brief are waived. See, e.g., Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. v. Rome Fastener Corp., 607 F.3d 817, 833 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We have considered Garrido’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. 12 GARRIDO v. HOLT AFFIRMED COSTS Costs to Holt.