Appeal No. 97-1223 Page 26
Application No. 08/147,143
established a prima facie case, the rejection of claims 32-34
is improper. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims
32-34 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 appellants. 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).
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 may be refused
consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences, unless good cause is shown.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007