Appeal No. 1998-0183
Application No. 08/413,040
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, 464, 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 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 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
Claims 12 and 13
Both these claims have been rejected as being obvious
over Goss. We take claim 12 first. After matching the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007