Appeal No. 2000-0702
Application 08/653,306
whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,
788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052,
189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). We are further guided by the
precedent of our reviewing court that the limitations from the
disclosure are not to be imported into the claims. In re
Lundberg, 244 F.2d 543, 548, 113 USPQ 530, 534 (CCPA 1957); In re
Queener, 796 F.2d 461, 464, 230 USPQ 438, 440 (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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007