Appeal No. 1999-2348
Application No. 08/586,716
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
We consider the two combinations of the prior art
references suggested by the examiner, separately, below.
Tayloe and Ono
The examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 8, 10 to 13 and 19 to
24
as being unpatentable over Tayloe in view of Ono at pages 4 to
5 of the examiner’s answer.
The examiner admits that Tayloe fails to teach that the
data processing means element selectively instructs the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007