Appeal No. 1997-1644 Page 12
Application No. 08/367,681
the slew rate of a different one. Therefore, the teachings of
the combinations of references in combination with the prior
art as a whole would have suggested 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 as claimed.
Next, we address the appellant’s arguments regarding the
obviousness of claim 11.
Claim 11
The appellant makes the following argument.
Claim 11 adds the further limitation that the
differential slew-rate limiting is programmed in at
the time device interconnect is formed; Boomer
teaches away from this concept by providing that all
output drivers are programmed to have equal slew-
rate limiting at the time the device is used, using
a control signal. (Appeal Br. at 8.)
He adds, “a circuit which must be programmed for each use
does not render obvious a circuit which needs only be
programmed
once, during fabrication.” (Reply Br. at 6.) The examiner’s
reply follows:
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007