Appeal No. 2002-2169 Page 6
Application No. 09/163,286
claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention." 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.192(c)(8)(ii) (2002).
Here, the appellants' argument is not responsive to the examiner's rejection.
More specifically, although the examiner asserts that the meaning of the claim's
"frequency offset" is unclear, the appellants argue that the claim specifies how the
offset is determined and how it is used. The argument does not allege, let alone show,
that the meaning of "frequency offset" is clear.
Third, the examiner asserts that in claim 12, "[i]t is unclear to what the language
'provide a calibration signal' refers. Is the calibration signal related to the frequency
offset?" (Examiner's Answer at 4.) The appellants argue, "[a] free running local
oscillator can either be phase locked to a sub-harmonic of the atomic clock based
satellite carrier transmissions, or those transmissions can be used to measure the local
clock errors." (Reply Br. at 3.)
Again, the appellants' argument is not responsive to the examiner's rejection.
More specifically, although the examiner asserts that the claimed providing of a
calibration signal is unclear, the appellants argue that a local oscillator can either be
phase locked to a sub-harmonic of an atomic clock based satellite carrier
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007