Appeal No. 2004-0500
Application No. 09/488,783
describing a write operation, the skilled artisan would have
recognized and appreciated that the described burst access write
operation would apply equally well to a read operation. This is
especially evident when considering the Ramamurthy reference in its
entirety since Ramamurthy explicitly discloses (column 2, lines
65-67) that “[d]ata may be read rather than written to the
programmable registers by not asserting a write signal from the
CPU.” In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper
to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference
but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d
825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Further, we find to be without merit Appellant’s contention
(Brief, page 10; Reply Brief, page 3) that the Examiner has failed
to establish proper motivation for combining the Gray and
Ramamurthy references. Contrary to Appellant’s contention we find
no error in the Examiner’s line of reasoning (Answer, pages 4 and
8) which suggests that Ramamurthy’s disclosure (column 3, lines
1-5) of increased data bandwidth attendant to burst access
operation provides a clear motivating factor for combination with
Gray. For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007