Appeal 2007-0407
Application 10/243,796
Patent Application No. 10/153,301” (Br. 5). It is not the function of this
Board to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by Appellants. 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.”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2006).
We affirm the stated rejection because Appellants have failed to explain the
reasons they believe that the rejection is inappropriate.
ORDER
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-17, and 21-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Waldrop in view of Palmer, and of claims 3-5, 18-20,
and 31-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Waldrop in view
of Palmer and McKague have been reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-38 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S.
Patent Application No. 10/153,301 in view of Waldrop has been affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013