Appeal No. 1998-2585
Application No. 08/643,935
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 precedence 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 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.”) (Emphasis original.)
Analysis
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007