Appeal No. 97-2466 Page 19
Application No. 08/461,943
claims 2, 4-7, and 13-16 over Pyster in view of Cordy 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 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 will be
refused consideration by the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences, unless good cause is
shown.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007