Appeal No. 1998-2148
Application 08/764,783
Appellants contend that Postma does not disclose a
“means to remove heat”. We agree with the Examiner’s
explanation on pages 5 and 6 of the answer, wherein it states:
The thermally-conductive cylinder of Postma is not a
perfect insulator and must dissipate heat. Again
dissipating heat to the outside thereof is simply
not
an issue with the claimed invention, but even if it
were Postma’s device must do so (Note the connection
of such to the lead in).
Claims 8 and 9
Appellants note the same shortcomings of Postma as
alleged with respect to claims 1 through 4, 6 and 7. We see
no need to repeat the analysis, and find that Postma does make
obvious all the limitations of claims 8 and 9, as noted with
respect to claims 1 through 4, 6 and 7.
We are not required to raise and/or consider issues
not argued by Appellants. As stated by our reviewing court in
In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d
1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991), “[i]t 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.” 37 CFR
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007