Appeal No. 1999-1193
Application No. 08/429,504
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
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
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.”).
We take claim 2 as representative of this group. The
Examiner explains his position at pages 3 to 4 of the
Examiner's answer and concludes that, id. at 4, that "[i]t
would have been obvious ... to create a file only when data to
be stored in
it is ready in order to avoid unnecessary file creations and
deletions." Appellants argue, brief at page 7, that "[t]he
Examiner's bare assertion of obviousness provides an
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007