requirements of Rule 637(c)(3) if Alt does not also comply with
the statute. Alt has made no reasonable attempt to show that it
timely presented a claim directed to the same, or substantially
the same, invention as that defined by Rohrmann claim 5. We
decline to undertake the role of an advocate for Alt against
Rohrmann and search the record to determine if Alt timely
presented a claim consistent with the requirements of § 135(b).
Cf. Clintec Nutrition Co. v. Baxa Corp., 44 USPQ2d 1719, 1723
n.16 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (a court will not pour over the documents
to extract the relevant information, citing United States v.
Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (judges do not hunt for
truffles buried in briefs); Ernst Haas Studio, Inc. v. Palm
Press, Inc., 164 F.3d 110, 111-12, 49 USPQ2d 1377, 1378-79 (2d
Cir. 1999) ("Appellant's Brief is at best an invitation to the
court to scour the record *** and serve generally as an advocate
for appellant. We decline the invitation."); Bamberger v.
Cheruvu, 55 USPQ 1523, 1537 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1998) (board
declined to search the record in the first instance to determine
whether there is evidence which might support a holding of
obviousness).
Because we do not designate Rohrmann claim 5 as
corresponding to the count, it becomes unnecessary for us to
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007