Appeal No. 95-3208
Application 08/067,307
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
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)(8)(iii)(1997) states:
For each rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the argument
shall specify the errors in the rejection and why the
rejected claims are patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102,
including any specific limitations in the rejected
claims which are not described in the prior art relied
upon in the rejection.
Thus, 37 CFR § 1.192 provides that just as the court is not
under any burden to raise and/or consider such issues, this board
is not under any greater burden.
Turning to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is the
burden of the Examiner to establish why one having ordinary skill
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007