Appeal No. 95-1220
Application 07/972,279
rejection of claim 14. Appellants have chosen not to argue
any of the specific limitations of claim 14 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.” 37 CFR §
1.192(a) as amended at 58 Fed. Reg. 54510, Oct. 22, 1993,
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.
Also, 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(6)(iv) states:
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007