Appeal No. 95-1682
Application 07/853,459
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 appel-
lant, 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 authori-
ties 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 Interfer-
ences.
Also, 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
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007