Appeal No. 1997-0601
Application 08/161,878
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 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.”).
We now treat the rejections before us.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 12 and 16
These claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Ohta. The Examiner contends [answer, pages 4 to
5 and 9 to 10] that Ohta (column 8) shows different size
shorts for a two terminal device. The Examiner asserts [id.
4] that “[i]t is considered that such different size shorts
would have clearly been obvious in Ohta’s 3 terminal device.”
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007