Appeal No. 1997-1644 Page 10
Application No. 08/367,681
in isolation but for what they fairly teach in combination
with the prior art as a whole. Id., 231 USPQ at 380.
Here, the rejection is based on APA and Boomer in
combination with the prior art as a whole. The appellant
admits that a semiconductor device having a plurality of
output drivers was known at the time of invention. (Spec. at
2-3 (referring to “output drivers”).) He also admits that the
problem that “the outputs at the output pins of the integrated
circuit package do not all change state at the same time,”
(Spec. at 3), was also known then. These admissions, i.e.,
the APA, would have suggested a plurality of output drivers,
each having a slew rate.
The appellant further errs in determining the content of
the prior art. A reference must be considered as a whole for
what it reveals “to workers in the art.” Panduit Corp. v.
Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1566, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1595
(Fed. Cir. 1987).
Such persons, moreover, must be presumed to know something
about the art apart from what the reference teaches. Jacoby,
309 F.2d at 516, 135 USPQ at 319.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007