Appeal No. 1999-1891
Application No. 08/421,089
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, 548,
113 USPQ 530, 534 (CCPA 1957); In re Queener, 796 F.2d 461,
463-64, 230 USPQ 438, 440 (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 nonobvious 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 a reason
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007