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
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007