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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007