Appeal No. 96-4052
Application 08/198,511
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 a 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."). The rejection of
claims 42 and 46 is sustained.
Appellants argue that "[t]he masking material, as taught
by Kohl et al. (column 5, lines 56-59), comprises noble
metals, and hence does not include silicon nitride (which is
not a metal) and chromium (which is not a noble metal) as are
recited in Applicant's claim 43" (Br10). Applicant argues
that "it would not have been obvious to 1) use materials that
were not even suggested by Kohl et al. (silicon nitride and
chromium) as masking agents" (Br10-11). This argument is not
persuasive. Claim 43 recites that "said masking material is
- 14 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007