Appeal No. 1996-3262
Application No. 08/141,632
Although Bohrer et al states23 that the pulse mode is not
necessary or typically used in the preferred embodiment of his
invention since it requires more complicated control circuitry,
it is none-the-less a disclosed mode of operation for some
applications.
We note that Appellants have not argued that Bohrer et al
has failed to meet any of the other limitations of these claims.
Appellants have chosen not to argue any other specific
limitations of the claims 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 CFR § 1.192(a) as amended at 58 CFR 545
Oct. 22, 1993, 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 Appellants 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, unless good cause
is shown.
23 Column 15, lines 31-35
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007