Appeal No. 1998-2710
Application 08/582,045
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.”)
Now, we discuss the two groups of claims.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-15, 18, 19, and 25
We take claim 1 as representative of this group.
After discussing each reference briefly and individually,
the Examiner asserts, answer at page 4, that "it would have
been obvious ... to incorporate the load circuit and the
capacitors taught by the Lee reference into the Funada
reference." After giving the explanation of the individual
references at pages 7-11 of the brief, Appellants conclude,
brief at page 15, that "as both Funada and Lee fail to teach
or disclose the capacitive circuit, the combination of Funada
with Lee fails to teach or disclose the claimed capacitive
circuit." Appellants further conclude, brief at page 19, that
"the combination of Funada with Lee fails to teach or disclose
the claimed second circuit wherein the second circuit causes a
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007