Appeal No. 1997-1644 Page 7
Application No. 08/367,681
skill solely on the cold words of the literature."). Of
course, every patent application and reference relies on the
knowledge of persons skilled in the art to complement its
disclosure. In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660, 193 USPQ 12, 16
(CCPA 1977). Such persons must be presumed to know something
about the art apart from what the references teach. In re
Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962). We
address the appellant’s arguments regarding the obviousness of
claims 1-10 and 12-22 and regarding the obviousness of claim
11.
Claims 1-10 and 12-22
The appellant argues, “Claims 1-10 and 12-22 provide that
at least two output drivers have different slew-rate limiting
applied to them; such a concept is neither shown nor suggested
by Boomer.” (Appeal Br. at 8.) He adds, “Without some motive
or incentive in the prior art for modifying the output driver
of Boomer (1) to apply to multiple signals from multiple
output pins, and (2) to independently delay signals from
multiple output pins, the Examiner has not established a prima
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007