Appeal No. 1998-2102
Application 08/826,039
determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the
relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In
re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788
(Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
We are further guided by the precedence of our reviewing
court, under both 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103, that the
limitations from the disclosure are not to be imported into
the claims. In re Lundberg, 244 F.2d 543, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA
1957); In re Queener, 796 F.2d 461, 230 USPQ 438 (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
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007