Appeal No. 1998-0662
Application No. 08/561,223
We are not inclined to dispense with proof by evidence
when the proposition at issue is not supported by a teaching
in a prior art reference, common knowledge or unquestionable
demonstration. Our reviewing court requires this evidence in
order to establish a prima facie case. In re Knapp-Monarch
Co., 296 F.2d 230, 232, 132 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1961); In re
Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966).
As noted supra, the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case for dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16 and
19.
Additionally, we are not required to raise and/or
consider issues not argued by Appellants. 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 37 CFR § 1.192(a) as
amended at 60 Fed. Reg. 14518 (Mar. 17, 1995), which was
controlling at the time of Appellants' filing the brief,
states as follows:
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007