Appeal No. 94-3790
Application 08/032,758
that require two control terminals and two control signals to
be based on the disclosed invention. However, our original
analysis in our original opinion makes clear that only one
control terminal and one control signal are recited and that
only one delay is recited in claim 21. For these arguments of
appellant to have merit, they must have corresponding language
in claim 21 on appeal.
The additional assertion, made at the top of page 2 that
if the delay of the rising signal edges in Lofgren is
increased, then the delay of the falling signal edges is also
increased, and vice versa, is a restatement of the above
asserted position, which again, is not consistent with that
which is recited in claim 21 on appeal. Claim 21 says nothing
of the delay of the second type signal edges as we explained
in our original opinion and the examiner explained in the
answer.
One view of the operation of Lofgren’s teachings is that
the OSC clocking signal is delayed one clock cycle or one
clock
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007