Appeal No. 1997-1644 Page 14
Application No. 08/367,681
that rate was achieved, further programming was unnecessary.
Workers in the art would also have known that a circuit
assembler at the time of fabrication would be best equipped to
program the resistors. Therefore, the teachings of the
combinations of references in combination with the prior art
as a whole would have suggested that the means for controlling
the slew rates of said output drivers includes control
circuitry containing resistors programmable by interconnect
definition during device fabrication as claimed.
Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over APA in view of Boomer. We end
by noting that the affirmance is based only on the arguments
made in the brief. Arguments not raised therein are not
before us, are not at issue, and are thus considered waived.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007