Appeal No. 2005-2042 Page 8
Application No. 09/946,298
shall explain how such limitations render the claimed subject matter unobvious over the
prior art." 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(8)(iv)(2004).2
Here, the examiner has made specific findings, supra, of where the references
teach the limitations at issue. For his part, although the appellant has identified
limitations in claim 11 allegedly not described in those references, he has not addressed
the specific findings of the examiner, let alone showed error therein. Just as "[i]t is not
the function of [the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit] to examine the claims
in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over
the prior art," In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285
(Fed. Cir. 1991), it is not the function of this Board to examine claims in greater detail
than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art.
2. Motivation to Combine the Teachings
2We cite to the version of the C.F.R., i.e., the Code of Federal Regulations, in
effect at the time of the appellant's brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007