Appeal No. 95-2599
Application 07/983,931
in copending application, serial no. 07/787,912 . 5
In view of this clarification, we find that the Examiner has
overcome Appellants' argument. We note that Appellants have
chosen not to argue any of the specific limitations of
Appellants' claims as a basis for patentability. We are not
required to raise and/or consider such issues. As stated by our
reviewing court in In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388,
391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991), "[i]t is not the
function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail
than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions
over the prior art." 37 CFR § 1.192(a) as amended at 58 Fed.
Reg. 54510, Oct. 22, 1993, which was controlling at the time of
Appellants filing the brief, states as follows:
The brief . . . must set forth the authorities and
arguments on which the appellant will rely to maintain
the appeal. Any arguments or authorities not included
in the brief may be refused consideration by the Board
of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
Also, 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(6)(iv) states:
For each rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the argument
shall specify the errors in the rejection and, if
appropriate, the specific limitations in the rejected
claims which are not described in the prior art relied
on in the rejection, and shall explain how such
5Now U.S. Patent No. 5,543,646 issued August 6, 1996. In
view of the issuance of a patent the rejection is no longer
characterized as a provisional rejection.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007