Appeal No. 1998-2699
Application 08/387,504
limitations from the disclosure are not to be imported into
the claims. In re Lundberg, 244 F.2d 543, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA
1957); In re Queener, 796 F.2d 461, 230 USPQ 438 (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 Appellants, 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
if 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 rejects claim 1 as being unpatentable over
Nye and gives a detailed explanation as to how Nye is applied
to meet the limitations of the claims on pages 2-4 of the
final rejection.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007