Appeal No. 1996-4091
Application 08/167,394
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.
Also, 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iii) states:
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 rejected claims
which are not described in the prior art
relied upon in the rejection.
Thus, 37 CFR § 1.192 provides that this board is not under any
greater burden than the court to raise and/or consider such
issues.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed,
and the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 through 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is reversed.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007