Appeal No. 1999-0008
Application No. 08/625,834
then shifts to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case
with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness, is then determined
on the basis of the evidence as a whole and 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 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,
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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007