Appeal No. 2002-1114
Application No. 09/154,100
claim 7 limitations. Furthermore, unlike claim 1, we fail to
find a limitation recited in claim 7 that requires a base station
to use channels for more than one group.
Appellants have chosen not to argue any of the specific
limitations of the claims as a basis for patentability. We are
not required to raise and/or consider such issues. 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a) as amended at 58 CFR 54510 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.
Thus, 37 CFR § 1.192 provides that only the arguments made by
Appellants in the brief will be considered and that failure to
make an argument constitutes a waiver on that particular point.
Support for this rule has been demonstrated by our reviewing
court in In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984, 61 USPQ2d 1523, 1258-29
(Fed. Cir. 2002), wherein the Federal Circuit Court stated that
because the Appellant did not contest the merits of the
rejections in his brief to the Federal Circuit Court, the issue
is waived. Also, see In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d
1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007