Appeal No. 1998-0296 Application 08/431,312 recite this argued limitation. We note that Appellants have not argued that Ina has failed to meet any of the other limitations of this claim. 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 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. Thus, 37 CFR §1.192 provides that just as the Court is not 13Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007