Appeal No. 1998-2924
Application NO. 08/276,290
looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art." Just
as our reviewing court does not, sua sponte, raise or consider
issues not argued, we are similarly not burdened to do the
same.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the admitted prior
art and Sagara teach all Appellants' claim 3 limitations.
Because we find that the admitted prior art and Sagara read on
Appellants' claims, we do not consider the Tanabe reference
and affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 3 based solely on
the admitted prior art and Sagara references. We do not
consider this to be a new ground of rejection. As In re
Halley states, "[I]t is proper . . . to study the whole of the
various references in the record and to apply one rather than
a combination of two or three against the claims . . . ." In
re Halley, 296 F.2d 774, 778, 132 USPQ 16, 20 (CCPA 1961).
See also In re Kronig and Scharfe, 539 F.2d 1300, 1044, 190
USPQ 425, 426-427 (CCPA 1976).
Appellants have already acknowledged that claims 4, 7, 8,
11, 24, 25, and 28 stand or fall together with claim 3.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 4,
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007