Appeal No. 1996-0427
Application 08/210,224
of providing a signal comprising a sequence of a predetermined
number of pulses. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 4 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have addressed all of Appellants' arguments. We
are not required to raise and/or consider any further issue
not argued by Appellants. 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)(July 1, 1995) as amended at 60
Fed. Reg. 14518 (March 17, 1995), 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
appellant will rely to maintain the appeal.
Any arguments or authorities not included
in the brief will be refused
consideration by the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences, unless good
cause is shown.
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iii) states:
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007