Appeal No. 1995-3903 Page 21
Application No. 08/062,737
We end our consideration of the claims by concluding that
we are not required to raise or consider any issues not argued
by the appellants. Our reviewing court stated, “[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.” In re Baxter Travenol
Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir.
1991).
37 C.F.R. § 1.192(a), as amended at 60 Fed. Reg. 14518
(Mar. 17, 1995), was controlling when the appeal brief was
filed. Section 1.192(a) stated 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 will be refused
consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences, unless good cause is shown.
Simultaneously, 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(8)(iv) stated as follows:
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. If the
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007