Appeal No. 1998-0871
Application No. 08/406,301
have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the manual zoom processing
means of Lim operable by a key application part as taught by Miyashita so that a user of the projection
system would be able to operate the zoom processing means more
conveniently. Therefore, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
We note that appellants have chosen not to argue any of the other specific limitations of claim 1
as a basis for patentability. As stated by our reviewing court 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)(July 1, 1996) as amended at 60 Fed. Reg. 14518 (March 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 may
be refused consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, unless
good cause is shown.
Also, 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iv) states:
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
(10)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007