Appeal No. 1998-0631
Application 07/957,990
rejection or with the claims from which they depend. See
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1996) (claims stand or fall together
unless appellant includes a statement that the claims do not
stand or fall together and, in the argument section,
explains why the claims of the group are believed to be
separately patentable). Cf. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688,
692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1900 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (in banc) ("It is
not the practice of this court to review claims that an
applicant has not separately argued at the Board level,
because, inter alia, we lack the benefit of the Board's
reasoned decision on the separate patentability of those
claims.")
Only argued limitations are addressed
We confine our analysis to issues and differences
argued in the briefs. Under USPTO rules, an appellant's
brief is required to specify the specific limitations in the
rejected claims which are not described in the prior art or
rendered obvious over the prior art. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(8)(iii) & (iv). Cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs.,
952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
("It is not the function of this court to examine the claims
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007