Appeal No. 1999-2747
Application 08/757,979
claim invalid under Section 103, for 'anticipation is the
epitome of obviousness.’" Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
(citing In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA
1982)). We note that Appellants have not argued that
Lefsky has failed to meet any of the aforesaid limitations of
claim 20. 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 62 FR 53196 Oct. 10, 1997, 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.
Thus, 37 CFR § 1.192 provides that just as the court is
not under any burden to raise and/or consider such issues this
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007