Appeal No. 2000-1811
Application No. 08/879,638
shifted to Appellants to show that the prior art structure did
not do so. Appellants have presented no persuasive evidence to
rebut the assumption that the guide pin structure disclosed by
Semmlow functioned to perform alignment in at least two
dimensions. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327,
231 USPO 136, 138-39 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252,
1254-55, 195 USPO 430, 433 (CAPA 1976); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d
660, 664, 169 USPO 563, 566-67 (CAPA 1971).
In a further argument related to the guide pin structure
disclosed by Semmlow, Appellants now assert that the existence of
the intervening (unnumbered) sleeve between the tapered end and
the cylindrical shaped body of the guide pin in Semmlow provides
an indication that the guide pin end is attached to the
cylindrical body through the intervening sleeve. In Appellants’
view (Request, page 3), this raises the possibility that
Semmlow’s guide pin end and cylindrical portion are two separate
pieces.
In reviewing this argument, we make the observation that any
arguments related to the existence of an intervening connecting
sleeve in Semmlow were not made in the Brief before us on appeal.
An argument not timely made is an argument waived. Since
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007