Appeal No. 1999-1584
Application No. 08/579,242
persua-siveness 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007