Appeal No. 96-3294 Application 08/055,422 Mattson of using "performance measures, such as hit/miss ratios" would not have suggested the obviousness of using Kitajima's unrelated read/write ratio. The examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of claims 1-8 is reversed. Claims 9 and 10 Appellants do not directly address claim 9. To the extent that comments made with respect to claim 1 are relevant to claim 9, these comments are addressed in the analysis which follows. Otherwise, arguments not made are considered waived. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(6)(iv) (1994) ("For each rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the argument shall specify the errors in the rejection and, if appropriate, the specific limitations in the rejected claims which are not described in the prior art relied on in the rejection, and shall explain how such limitations render the claimed subject matter unobvious over the prior art."). 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 Wiechert, - 6 -Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007