Appeal No. 1998-0259
Application No. 08/391,817
for the same reasons as noted with respect to Nakazawa.
Additionally we note, V-groove 12a retains optical fiber 3 in
a fixed orientation with respect to substrate 2a as claimed.
We note that Appellants have not argued that the three
references have failed to meet any other limitations. 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 60 F.R. 14518 Mar. 17, 1995, 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 will be refused
consideration by the Board of [P]atent Appeals and
Interferences, unless good cause is shown.
Also, 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iii) states:
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007