Appeal No. 96-2682
Application 08/145,269
between 10 to 90 percent by weight tungsten and about 10 to
90 percent by weight molybdenum.
As noted above, Appellants have chosen not to argue any
of these specific limitations of claim 1 as a basis for patent-
ability or to argue specifically the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1. 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. 14518 (Mar. 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 [P]atent 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
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007