Appeal No. 96-4006
Application No. 08/300,028
signal in response to a control signal, with said reference
clock signal and feedback clock signal being maintained at a
first and second constant frequency, respectively.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Aldridge 3,898,579 Aug. 5, 1975
Volk et al. (Volk) 4,829,258 May 9, 1989
Hotta et al. (Hotta) 5,133,064 July 21, 1992
Claims 1, 5, 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Volk.
Claims 4 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Volk in view of applicant’s admitted
prior art.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13 through 17 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Aldridge in view of Hotta.
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Volk.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answers for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse all of the rejections.
According to the examiner (Supplemental Answer, pages 3
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007