Appeal No. 1997-0440
Application No. 08/582,237
of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently (see
Hazani v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44
USPQ2d 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied
Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
We are further guided by the precedents of our reviewing
court that, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and under
35 U.S.C. § 102, limitations from the disclosure are not to be
imported into the claims. In re Lundberg, 244 F.2d 543, 548,
113
USPQ 530, 534 (CCPA 1957); In re Queener, 796 F.2d 461, 463-
64, 230 USPQ 438, 440 (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 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 a reason
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007