Appeal No. 1998-2264
Application No. 08/439,793
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.”)
Analysis
At the outset, we note that the claims do not stand or
fall together. We treat below the various claims under
rejection and the corresponding Appellant’s arguments.
Claim 7
Claim 7 is rejected over APA (specification, fig. 2) and
Damoci. The Examiner recognizes [answer, page 4] that APA
does not show the internal/external viewing changeover switch
having one terminal connected between an external input of the
VTR and an input of the VTR AGC circuit. The Examiner
explains [id., 4 to 5] how APA can be modified by the
teachings of Damoci to provide the claimed changeover switch.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007