Appeal No. 1997-0553
Application No. 08/409,191
rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 11, filed Apr. 26, 1996) for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
At the outset we note that our determination on this appeal is based upon the
evidence of record on the issues before us at the time of the decision.
As stated by our reviewing court in In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d. 388,
391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991), "it is not the function of this court to
examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(a)
states: "[t]he 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." Similarly, we
limit our review to the arguments raised by the appellants and the examiner.
From our review of the examiner’s rejection, we find that the examiner has set forth
a prima facie case of obviousness including a motivation for the combination of the prior
art teachings. “To reject claims in an application under section 103, an examiner must
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007