Appeal No. 1997-1644 Page 9
Application No. 08/367,681
would be within the scope of the Boomer disclosure
to accept the applicability of his driver in every
capacity for which an output driver is required.
Further, it is illogical to assume that Boomer would
intend all output buffers to be adjusted the same.
(Examiner’s Answer at 3.)
We agree with the examiner.
Representative claim 9 specifies in pertinent part the
following limitations: “a plurality of output drivers” and
“means ... for controlling the slew rates of said output
drivers such that the slew rate of at least one of said output
drivers is different than the slew rate of a different said
output driver ....”
The appellant errs in considering Boomer individually.
“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings
of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)). In
determining obviousness, furthermore, references are read not
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007