Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,153
We note that with respect to the rejection of claim 1 as
being unpatentable over Flodin, Appellants have chosen not to
argue any other specific limitations of claim 1 as a basis for
patentability. We are not required to raise and/or consider
such issues. 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,
looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art.” 37
C.F.R. 1.192(a) as amended at 60 FR 14518 March 17, 1995,
which was controlling at the time of Appellants' filing the
brief, states 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 may be refused
consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences.
Also, 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(8)(iii) states:
For each rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, the argument
shall specify the errors in the rejection and, why
the rejected claims are patentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102, including any specific limitations in the rejected
claims which are not described in the prior art relied
upon in the rejection.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007