Appeal No. 2001-0865
Application 08/998,781
environment recognition operation at a print recognition time";
(2) "said print recognition time being determined in accordance
with said transmission time"; and (3) "said print environment
recognition operation being performed while the print data are
being received by said printer." No other limitations of the
independent claims are argued. Arguments not raised are waived.
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 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). Therefore, the independent
claims are treated as standing or falling together with claim 1
based on these three argued limitations (although we mention a
slight difference in wording in claim 13).
Appellant separately mentions claims 2, 6, 9 and, thus,
these claims will be grouped separately.
Thus, we find the following groups: (1) claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8,
13, 16, 17, and 20 stand or fall with claim 1; (2) claims 2, 14,
and 15 stand or fall with claim 2; (3) claims 6, 18, and 19 stand
or fall with claim 6; and (4) claims 9-12 stand or fall with
claim 9.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007