Appeal No. 2004-1676 Application 09/263,918 suggesting a segmentation and reassembly (SAR) software module implemented in a CPU of a personal computer is repeated throughout the brief and reply brief. We see and address two limitations intertwined in appellants' arguments: (1) a SAR software module executed on a CPU; and (2) the CPU is a CPU of a personal computer. Arguments not made are considered to be abandoned and have not been addressed. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iv) (2002) (brief must point out errors in the rejection). 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 Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1367, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("Just as it is important that the PTO in general be barred from raising new arguments on appeal to justify or support a decision of the Board, it is important that the applicant challenging a decision not be permitted to raise arguments on appeal that were not presented to the Board." (Footnote omitted.)) (1) As to the SAR software module executing on a CPU, the examiner finds that Kwak teaches SAR software at column 1, lines 10-13, and column 2, lines 4-24 (EA5). The examiner states (EA5): "Although Kwak does not explicitly show a SAR software - 4 -Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007