Appeal No. 1998-0818
Application No. 08/319,143
We note that with respect to the rejection of claim 13 as
being anticipated by Chen, Appellants have chosen not to argue
any other specific limitations of claim 13 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."
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007