Ex parte HOTTA et al. - Page 5

          Appeal No. 2000-1356                                                        
          Application 07/979,772                                                      

          considered waived.  See 37 CFR  1. 192 (a) and (c).  In re                 
          Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ 2d 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.”)                                               
               At the outset, we note that the claims do not stand or                 
          fall together.  We treat below the various claims under                     
          rejection and the corresponding Appellants’arguments.                       
               Claim 38                                                               
          Appellants argue [brief, page 16] that “there is no teaching                
          or suggestion in Lee of an execution unit which executes the                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007