Appeal No. 1998-2602
Application 08/303,158
the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then 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 precedents of our reviewing
court that the limitations from the disclosure 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007