Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
resultant combination color identifies the results of the
logical operation, and is used by the observer to carry out
data analysis.
We note that Appellant has not argued that Conrad
failed to teach any of the other limitations of these claims.
Appellant has 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 Appellant’s 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, unless good cause is shown.
Also, 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iii) stated:
18
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007