Appeal No. 96-3054
Application 08/134,147
the filing date of the application. However, at page 7, lines
23-26 of the specification (as originally filed), it states:
The phase detector 11 sends phase
adjustment signals to the charge pump 12
which are single and two-cycle, up/down,
pulse-width modulated, digital control
signals up-B, down, UP2-B, DOWN2.
(Emphasis added.)
We find pulse-width modulated, fully supports the
claim language “duty cycle modulated pulses”, and thereby will
not sustain the rejection of claims 19 through 25 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph.
Before we discuss the prior art rejections, we note
that Appellant has argued several rejections which are not
outstanding, i.e., a 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
rejection of claims 15 through 24 which has been withdrawn,
rejections using the reference Liu et al. against claims 15
through 18, and an art rejection of claims 19 through 25 using
Wong and Koskowich. (Brief, pages 8-13 and 15.) We will not
comment on the merits of rejections which are not before us.
Turning to the rejection of claims 15 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007