Appeal No. 96-4006
Application No. 08/300,028
suggested to the skilled artisan a constant reference clock
frequency.
Turning to the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 3, 6,
7, 10, 11 and 13 through 17, appellant does not challenge the
propriety of modifying the teachings of Aldridge with those of
Hotta. Appellant does, however, argue that “the Aldridge
feedback loop does not remain synchronous with the Aldridge
reference clock signal” (Brief, page 6), and that Hotta allows
the “reference signal to lose synchronization with its
feedback signal during operation” (Brief, page 7).
Appellant is able to maintain a constant feedback clock
signal by using two separate dividers with differently varying
divisors. The examiner’s contentions (Supplemental Answer,
pages 4, 5 and 7) to the contrary notwithstanding, Aldridge’s
single divider 17 (Figure 1) is incapable of performing such a
feat because the divider 17 constantly changes the frequency
of the feedback clock signal f /n (column 1, lines 24 through
0
30; and column 3, lines 40 through 44). Hotta discloses a
clock generator (Figure 21; column 14, lines 4 through 9)
which uses two separate frequency dividers 1304. Hotta does
not, however, disclose varying the divisors in the two
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007