Appeal No. 2001-1523
Application No. 08/731,236
to be imported into the claims. In re Lundberg, 244 F.2d 543, 113
USPQ 530 (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.”).
Consistent with the categorization of the three rejections
in the case by both appellant and the examiner, we consider the
different rejections below.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007