Appeal No. 1999-2006
Application No. 08/561,960
(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 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.”).
Claims 2 to 5 are rejected on pages 5 and 6 of the
Examiner's answer over Matsushita in view of Paterson. The
Examiner asserts, answer at page 6, that "to provide the device
of Matsushita with a shallow groove provided in the major
surface at the channel region and overlapping the ends of the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007