Appeal No. 1999-1992
Application No. 08/848,842
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 this court, even
of 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.”).
The examiner rejects claims 5 and 10 over Farwell and
Kolluri, as set forth on page 5 of the examiner’s answer.
However, claims 5 and 10 respectively claim at least the
limitations of the independent claims 1 and 8, and Kolluri
does not cure the deficiency noted above regarding the
rejection of claims 1 and 8 by Farwell. Therefore, the
rejection of claims 5 and 10 over Farwell and Kolluri is not
sustainable.
Claim 6 is rejected as being obvious over Farwell and
Davis on page 5 of the examiner’s answer. Again, we note that
claim 6 depends from claim 1 and contains at least the
limitations of claim 1. Davis does not cure the deficiency
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007