Appeal No. 1998-3035
Application No. 08/580,036
Schulze, 346 F. 2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In
re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
For the above reasons, it is our opinion that since the
Examiner’s reasonable challenge to the sufficiency of
Appellants’ disclosure has not been overcome by any convincing
arguments or evidence from Appellants, the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 1-24, which
specifically recite a phase relationship between generated
clock signals, is sustained. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection of claims 25 and 26 is not sustained,
however, since these claims are directed solely to circuit
structure with no claim limitations directed to the phase
relationship between any generated clock signals.
We next turn to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 6 and 20-24 as
being unpatentable over either Yoshizawa or Nagasaki. These
claims, which are directed to complementary clock signal
generation, set forth limitations which require a particular
relative skew value either at a specified operating frequency
(claims 6 and 20) or with respect to a specified percentage of
clock signal duty cycle (claims 21-24). As the basis for the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007