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.”)
Analysis
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
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007