Appeal No. 97-1784
Application 08/011,068
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that
the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the
Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the prior
art suggested the desirability of the modification." In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14
(Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221
USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Obviousness may not be
established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or
suggestions of the inventor." Para-Ordnance Mfg., 73 F.3d at
1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239, citing W. L. Gore, 721 F.2d at 1551,
1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13. Upon reviewing Rubinstein and
Collins, we fail to find any suggested desirability of modifying
Rubinstein and Collins to obtain a digital clock wave form
generator or a method for generating a clock signal as recited in
Appellants’ claims 1 through 7 and 12 through 20.
In regard to the rejection of claims 8 through 11,
Appellants argue that Rubinstein and Collins, together or
individually, fail to teach or suggest a lock window unit wherein
the extent of propagation through the lock window circuit
indicates the deviation of the propagation delay of the delay
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007