Appeal No. 95-3388
Application 08/242,993
through 28, 30, 31 and 35 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 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
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)(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
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007