Appeal No. 96-2741
Application 08/227,093
At the time appellants' brief was filed, PTO rules
required: "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." 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(8)(iv). Because the PTO has a rule requiring
appellants to argue contested limitations we, like our
reviewing court, are not required to look for differences
beyond those which are discussed in appellants' brief. Cf.
In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391,
21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It 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."); In re Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 936,
152 USPQ 247, 254 (CCPA 1967) ("This court has uniformly
followed the sound rule that an issue raised below which is
not argued in this court, even if it has been properly brought
here by a reason of appeal, is regarded as abandoned and will
not be considered. It is our function as a court to decide
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007