Appeal No. 1997-3911
Application 08/368,758
the micro-controller,” as required by claim 14. We agree with
the examiner that both of these modifications would have been
obvious. Considering first the “on the single substrate”
limitation, Denki's explanation that “the address comparing
circuit (4) or the substitution command register (5) may be
provided on a portable external liquid [sic], which is
connected to the microprogram control device only when it is
needed” makes it clear that these elements alternatively may
be internal components of the microprogram control device, as
apparently shown in Denki's Figure 1. We hereby take official
notice of the fact that it was known at the time the
application was filed to form as many components of a mass-
produced computerized control circuit as possible on a single
substrate in order to reduce the size and cost of the control
circuit and that a RAM was known to be one such component.
Compare In re Raynes, 7 F.3d 1037, 1040, 28 USPQ2d 1630, 1631-
32 (Fed. Cir. 1993):
In In re Taylor, 288 F.2d 950, 954, 129 USPQ
269, 272 (CCPA 1961), the court referred to broad
concepts "in the realm of the obvious", a
designation that is apt in this case, for the use of
video to display programming and other information
is so ubiquitous as to warrant judicial notice.
Cf. In re Howard, 394 F.2d 869, 870, 157 USPQ 615,
- 21 -
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007