Ex Parte KANOH et al - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1999-1552                                                        
          Application No. 08/678,255                                                  


          persuasiveness of the arguments.  See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d               
          1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges,            
          783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re              
          Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (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                     
          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                






                                          4                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007