Appeal No. 1998-1547
Application No. 08/582,001
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, the examiner contends that the claims are
indefinite and incomplete because it was unclear what
comprised certain structures and where other structures within
a suspension assembly would be located.
Without reaching the merits of this rejection, we will
summarily sustain the rejection of claims 1-6 and 21-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because appellants have
failed to respond to the examiner’s rejection in either the
principal brief or the reply brief. Appellants have chosen
not to argue specifically the examiner’s rejection based on 35
U.S.C. § 112. We are not required to raise and/or consider an
issue not raised by appellants even though plausible arguments
against a rejection may, possibly, have been made. 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 CFR § 1.192
makes it clear that just as the court is not under any burden
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007