Appeal No. 1996-2481 Page 20
Application No. 07/828763
We end our opinion by concluding that we are not required
to raise or consider any issues not argued by the appellants.
Our reviewing court concluded, “[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.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391,
21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
37 C.F.R. § 1.192(a), as amended at 60 Fed. Reg. 14518
(Mar. 17, 1995), was controlling when the appeal brief was
filed. Section 1.192(a) stated 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 will be refused
consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences, unless good cause is shown.
Simultaneously, 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(8)(iii) stated as
follows.
For each rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, the argument
shall specify the errors in the rejection and why
the rejected claims are patentable under 35 U.S.C.
102, including any specific limitations in the
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007