Appeal No. 1998-1794
Application 08/738,467
rendered obvious over the prior art. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(8)(ii), (iii) & (iv). Cf. 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 a 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."); In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1022, 201 USPQ 658, 661
(CCPA 1979) (arguments must first be presented to the Board
before they can be argued on appeal). We are not prescient
and cannot address arguments that have not been made.
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The Examiner finds no antecedent basis for "said bearing
means" in claim 20 and rejects claims 20-30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. Appellant's brief does not address
this rejection. We agree with the rejection. The phrase
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007