Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
whether features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the primary reference's structure, nor
whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any
one or all of the references; rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
We fail to find the Examiner has erred in the rejection
of claims 11 through 15 as being unpatentable over Miyake,
Tannas, Buzak and Grier. Appellant has chosen not to argue
why the reasons provided by the Examiner are not proper as a
basis for combinability. 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
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007