Appeal No. 97-1656 Page 12
Application No. 08/314,26
on a television screen. The characters are text. Thus, ACBD
and DCBA are teletext.
We end our consideration of the novelty of claims 1 and 2
by concluding that we are not required to raise or consider
any issues not argued. 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 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.
Also at the time of the brief, 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(8)(iii)
stated as follows.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007