Appeal No. 2006-1707
Application No. 09/964,029
at 1346, 51 USPQ2d at 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Titanium
Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 781, 227 USPQ 773, 778
(Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Appellants only argue the last three elements of the twenty-three elements of
claim 6 as missing in the applied prior art (brief, pages 9-12), to which we limit our
review. Our reviewing court stated that “[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). Additionally, arguments
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
briefs have not been considered (37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)). Therefore, similar
to the court, this board is not under any burden to raise or
consider issues that are not argued by Appellant. Therefore,
only those arguments actually made by Appellants related to the
three claimed elements have been considered in this decision.
Starting first with the element #20 of the claim, we observe that it is identified by
Appellants as the step of:
“[c]hecking the permissions and the ownership of the files references in
the vendors’ software patch and ensuring that the system software is authentic;”
(brief, page 9).
Appellants assert that this step requires two positive separate actions, “checking the
permissions and the ownership of the files” and “ensuring that the system software is
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007