Appeal No. 95-2218
Application 07/902,073
8. Claim 17, which depends from claim 16, requires the PLL
to include a variable oscillator generating a signal based on the
zone from which data is being read (course control) and the phase
difference between the signal and the DRDSS pulse (fine control).
Appellant states in the specification that the operation of the
PLL shown in Figure 3 is know to those having ordinary skill in
the art. (Paper 1 at 14.) Consequently, we cannot conclude that
this limitation distinguishes the subject matter in claim 17 from
the proposed combination of Fischler and Pederson. In any case,
we have already found fine control in Fischler's PLL to be
equivalent. Finding 7?, supra. Claim 17 does not specify a
source for the zone-based signal, so the fact that Fischler's
signal comes via a digital-to-analog converter 67 instead of a
microprocessor as Appellant discloses is not relevant.
9. Although we have concluded that the subject matter of
claims 12 and 15-17 would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view of
Fischler and Pederson, our rationale is sufficiently distinct
from the examiner's rationale that we believe due process
requires a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
(Rule 196(b)).
- 12 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007