Appeal No. 96-4006
Application No. 08/300,028
first constant frequency, and the feedback clock frequency is
maintained at a second constant frequency.
Appellant argues (Reply Brief, page 3) that “Volk . . .
teaches away from the invention by requiring ‘the primary loop
to be adjusted . . . by simply adjusting the reference clock
frequency’ (Col. 10, lines 3-9) (emphasis added). (see
applicant’s Appeal Brief, pp. 3-4).” We agree. Volk states
throughout his disclosure (Abstract; column 2, lines 28
through 30; column 10, lines 3 through 9; and column 11, lines
40 through 42) that the loop frequency characteristics can be
programmed by adjusting the reference clock frequency. Thus,
the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 5, 8 and 9
is reversed because the reference clock is not maintained at a
constant frequency.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 4 and 12 is
reversed because applicant’s admitted prior art coupled with
Volk neither teaches nor would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art keeping the reference clock at a
constant frequency.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 18 and 19 is
reversed because the teachings of Volk would not have
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007