Appeal No. 1999-2379
Application 08/716,061
We do not go looking for issues that were not argued. See
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iii) (1998) (argument section of brief
must specify the errors in the rejection and the specific
limitations in the claims which are not described in the
prior art). Cf. 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 this court, even if it has been
properly brought here by a 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.");
In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1022, 201 USPQ 658, 661 (CCPA
1979) (arguments must first be presented to the Board before
they can be argued on appeal).
Obviousness
Claims 14 and 21
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007