Appeal No. 1999-1941
Application No. 08/629,700
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 that 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 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.”).
ANALYSIS
At the outset, we note that Appellant elects to have all
the claims stand or fall together, see brief at page 3.
We consider independent claim 1 first. On page 4 of the
Examiner's answer, the Examiner asserts that "Lyons et al '244
states that the system of control is that of well known systems
including MacMinn et al. '240 which illustrates a four quadrant
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007