Appeal No. 96-3395 Page 24
Application No. 08/347,900
have suggested steps c and e of claim 8 and its dependent
claims 9-11
or steps b and d of claim 18 and its dependent claims 19-22.
Therefore, we find the examiner’s rejection does not amount to
a prima facie case of obviousness. Because the examiner has
not established a prima facie case, the rejection of claims 8-
11 and 18-22 over Spencer in view of Sanford, Morabito, and
Seiden is improper. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of
the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We end our consideration of the obviousness of the claims
by concluding we are not required to raise or consider any
issues not argued by the appellant. Our reviewing court
stated, “[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).
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007