Ex Parte KITAKAMI et al - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1998-1658                                                        
          Application 08/343,876                                                      

               Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.             
          § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shimizu '178 and Okuda.                       
               Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as             
          unpatentable over Shimizu '178 and Okuda as applied in the                  
          rejection of claim 1, further in view of Yokoyama.                          
               We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 17) (pages                  
          referred to as "FR__") and the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 24)             
          (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the Examiner's             
          position, and to the Appeal Brief (Paper No. 23) (pages referred            
          to as "Br__") and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 25) (pages referred            
          to as "RBr__") for Appellants' arguments thereagainst.                      
                                       OPINION                                        
          Only argued limitations are addressed                                       
               We confine our analysis to issues and differences argued in            
          the brief.  Under U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rules, an                
          appellant's brief is required to describe how the claims                    
          distinctly claim the invention and to specify the particular                
          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)(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 in greater detail              
          than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions            
          over the prior art."); In re Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 936, 152               

                                        - 4 -                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007