Appeal No. 1999-1543
Application No. 08/456,762
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 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.”).
At the outset, we note that Appellant elects, brief at
page 4, that claims do not stand or fall together. However, in
the body of the brief all claims are not individually discussed;
see, for example, page 11 of the brief where claim 8 is said to
be grouped with claim 1. Nevertheless, we discuss the claims as
argued by Appellant in the body of the brief.
Rejection over Wanger and Belo
Claims 1, 13, 25 and 26 are rejected under this combination.
The Examiner gives a lucid explanation of the rejection of these
claims on pages 3 to 6 of the final rejection. The Examiner
admits, id. at page 5, that Wanger does not show the gripping
arms as "biased 'resiliently' in the second direction in the
second biasing condition." However, the Examiner concludes, id.
at page 6, that "it would have been obvious ... to modify the
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007