Appeal No. 97-1784
Application 08/011,068
1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996),
citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 851 (1984).
In regard to the rejection of claims 1 through 7 and
12 through 20, Appellants argue that Rubinstein and Collins,
together or individually, fail to teach or suggest iteratively
adjusting the propagation delay of the variable delay circuit
such that a period of a timing circuit is converged upon by the
propagation delay of the variable delay circuit. The Examiner
argues on page 5 of the answer that Collins teaches in column 4,
lines 3 through 9, convergence of a timing signal.
Upon a careful review of Rubinstein and Collins, we
find that neither reference teaches adjusting the propagation
delay of a variable delay circuit to match the period of a timing
signal. In column 2, line 60, through column 3, line 7, Collins
teaches that Figure 1 is a block diagram of a clock measuring and
tuning system. In particular, Collins teaches that the system
provides automatic tuning of the clock signals at a particular
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007