Appeal No. 1998-0765
Application No. 08/451,853
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
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.”).
Analysis
At the outset, we note that appellants have elected,
brief at page 4, to have claims 16 to 22, and 24 to 36 stand
or fall together. We also note that there are three separate
combinations of the applied references for the rejections on
appeal. We will consider each combination separately.
The rejection over Kaiser, McSweeney and Miyasaka
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007