Appeal No. 1996-1767 Page 17
Application No. 08/220,410
Here, the examiner identified a proper suggestion
supporting the combination. Specifically, Fujii teaches using
a central processing unit (CPU) to generate multiplication
factors for multipliers of a filter. Col. 5, ll. 23-37. One
of ordinary skill in the art would have known that such an
arrangement improves flexibility by permitting the
multiplication factors to be altered. Because improving
flexibility is desirable, the teaching would have suggested
the desirability of making the combination.
Second, the appellants argue, “Fujii does not disclose or
suggest the ... lattice wave digital filter ....” (Appeal Br.
at 8.) In reply, the examiner points to “the lattice wave
digital filter of the admitted Prior Art ....” (Examiner’s
Answer at 5.)
We agree with the examiner. One cannot establish non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where a
rejection is based on combinations of references. In re Merck
& Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In determining obviousness, furthermore, references are read
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007