Appeal No. 94-3053
Application 07/832,661
Aside from the above claim language for claim 60,
Appellants have chosen not to argue any of the other spe-
cific limitations as a basis for patentability. 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(6)(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
rejection is based upon a combination of
references, the argument shall explain why
the references, taken as a whole, do not
suggest the claimed subject matter, and
shall include, as may be appropriate, an
explanation of why features disclosed in
one reference may not properly be
combined with features disclosed in another
reference. A general argument that all the
limitations are not described in a single
reference does not satisfy the requirements
of this paragraph.
Just as our reviewing Court is not under any burden to raise
and consider issues not raised by an Appellant, Baxter, 952
F.2d at 391, 21 USPQ2d at 1285, this board is also not under
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007