Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
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 the
rejection is based upon a combination of references,
the argument shall explain why the references, taken
as a whole, do not suggest the claimed subject
matter, and shall include, as may be appropriate, an
explanation of why features disclosed in one
reference may not properly be combined with features
disclosed in another reference. A general argument
that all the limitations are not described in a
single reference does not satisfy the requirements
of this paragraph.
Thus, 37 CFR § 1.192 provides that this board is not under any
greater burden than the court which is not required to raise
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007