Appeal No. 1996-2578
Application 08/216,807
being connected to other parts of the circuit and being
charged/discharged in a prescribed manner. For this reason,
claim 14 is also anticipated by Shen like claim 1 as explained
above.
With respect to the dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 9 and 12,
we note that Appellant has not raised any arguments regarding
the claims under this heading individually. The arguments not
made are considered waived. See 37 CFR § 1.192
(c)(8)(iv)(1995) (“For each rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the
argument shall specify the errors in the rejection and, if
appropriate, the specific limiations in the rejected claims
which are not described in the prior art relied on in the
rejection, and shall explain how such limitations render the
claimed subject matter unobvious over the prior art.”). 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 Reed Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 936, 152 USPQ
247, 254 (CCPA 1967) (“This court has uniformly followed the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007