Appeal No. 1998-3380
Application 08/542,591
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686
(Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 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 precedent 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, 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 an appellant, 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
of it has been properly brought here by reason of appeal is
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007