Appeal No. 95-2205
Application 07/750,807
As pointed out above, IBM teaches on page 87 an allocation
of storage for a job. This allocation is the additional 12k of
GETVIS area where the total GETVIS is increased from 48k to 60k
as shown in Figures 27 and 28. Therefore, we find that the IBM
guide does teach an allocation of additional private storage area
on a job basis.
We note that Appellant has not argued that IBM has failed to
meet any of the other limitations of the claims. Appellant has
chosen not to argue any of these specific limitations of the
claims 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 F.R. 54510 Oct. 22,
1993, which was controlling at the time of Appellant’s 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 will be refused consideration by the Board
of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007