Appeal No. 95-3592
Application 08/109,203
Therefore, we find that Shirato teaches a resistive means
being electrically connected between said first heavily doped
region
and said second heavily doped region having a resistance
responsive to the voltage between said first heavily doped
region and said second heavily doped region as recited in
Appellants’ claims.
We note that Appellants have not argued that Shirato
has failed to meet any of the other limitations of the claims.
Appellants have 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.” 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
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007