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 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007