Appeal No. 1998-0622
Application No. 08/360,972
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 nonobviousness 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 that court, even
of 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.”).
With the above guidelines we proceed with the analysis of
the three combinations of the references below.
Buhrke and Caci
The examiner rejects claims 3 to 21, 24 to 36, and 44
under this combination of references at pages 4 to 6 of the
examiner’s
answer. After discussing in detail the references
individually, the examiner concludes, id. at page 6, that
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007