Appeal No. 99-0717 Page 11
Application No. 08/597,095
“an environment index learning section,” col. 5, ll. 13-15, it
is unclear whether the section is implemented external to the
electronic engine control microprocessor. It is also unclear
whether the section is implemented as a processor.
Therefore, we find the examiner’s rejection does not
amount to a prima facie case of obviousness. Because the
examiner has not established a prima facie case, the rejection
of the claims is improper. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejection of claims 2-10 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).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007