Appeal No. 2000-0341
Application No. 08/849,169
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
that court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued
by an appellant, looking for nonobviousness 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
that court, even of 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.”).
The Examiner's rejection is laid out on pages 3 and 4 of
the Examiner's answer. On page 9 of the brief and page 2 of
the reply brief, Appellants argue that the combination of
Keating and Uekusa is the result of impermissible hindsight.
We disagree. Keating is related to an anti-theft system for a
motor vehicle just like Appellants' invention is, and it too
blocks the operation of the motor vehicle if the operation of
the vehicle is outside of the authorized operation date and
time, see abstract. In Keating, the communication between the
vehicle-mounted card reader 22 and the authorizing external
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007