Appeal No. 2002-1594
Application No. 09/057,573
The only other argument in the Brief relevant to claim 7 and the rejection of
record is the allegation that “Saiki is not a slicer and consequently could not be used to
reject the present claimed invention.” (Brief at 7.)
The rejection does not rely on Saiki as disclosing a slicer, and thus whether or
not Saiki is a “slicer” is irrelevant. Appellants’ argument may, however, be read as
faulting the examiner’s finding of motivation to combine the references.1
The examiner finds that Kawashima discloses all of claim 7 except that phase
comparator 15 (col. 5, ll. 37-42; Fig. 1) lacks phase locked loop capability. Saiki
discloses the well known advantages (e.g., col. 7, ll. 1-12) of phase locked loop circuitry
and thus the suggestion for combination with Kawashima. We therefore consider the
examiner’s finding of motivation to make the proposed combination to be supported by
the evidence of record.
We are thus not persuaded that the conclusion of prima facie obviousness of the
subject matter as a whole of claim 7 is erroneous. Since appellants provide no
arguments for separate patentability of the dependent claims, we sustain the section
103 rejection of claims 7-9. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
We have considered all of appellants’ arguments in making our determinations.
Arguments not relied upon are deemed waived. See 37 CFR § 1.192(a) (“Any
1 The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references in an obviousness
determination is a pure question of fact. In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316, 53 USPQ2d 1769, 1776
(Fed. Cir. 2000).
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007