Appeal No. 96-2741 Application 08/227,093 At the time appellants' brief was filed, PTO rules required: "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 limitations render the claimed subject matter unobvious over the prior art." 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iv). Because the PTO has a rule requiring appellants to argue contested limitations we, like our reviewing court, are not required to look for differences beyond those which are discussed in appellants' brief. Cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It 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."); In re Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 936, 152 USPQ 247, 254 (CCPA 1967) ("This court has uniformly followed the sound rule that an issue raised below which is not argued in this court, even if it has been properly brought here by a reason of appeal, is regarded as abandoned and will not be considered. It is our function as a court to decide - 9 -Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007