Appeal No. 1998-2260
Application No. 08/535,685
(Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). We are further guided by the
precedent of our reviewing court that the limitations from the
disclosure are not to be imported into the claims. In re
Lundberg, 244 F.2d 543, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957); In re
Queener, 796 F.2d 461, 230 USPQ 438 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We also
note that the arguments not made separately for any individual
claim or claims are considered waived. See 37 CFR § 1. 192
(a) and (c). 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
USPQ 247, 254 (CCPA 1967) (“This court has uniformly followed
the sound rule that an issue raised below which is not argued
in this court, even if it has been properly brought here by
reason of appeal, is regarded as abandoned and will not be
considered. It is our function as a court to decide disputed
issues, not to create them.”).
Analysis
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007