Appeal No. 1997-0624
Application No. 08/303,556
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.
We note that appellants have presented claims 1, 2 and 4-8 as standing or falling
together and have argued all of the claims as a single group. (See Brief at page 5.)
Therefore, we address claims 1, 2 and 4-8 as standing or falling together (37 CFR
1.192(c)(7)).
At the outset we note that we make our determination on the evidence of record on
the issues before use at the time of the decision. We are not required to raise and/or
consider such issues. 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(a). As stated by our reviewing court in In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d. 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991),
"[i]t 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.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007