Appeal No. 1996-4030
Application 08/104,462
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
Appellant 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.
Also, 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iv) states:
For each rejection under 37 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
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007