Appeal No. 96-3054
Application 08/134,147
Appellant argues that:
[T]he two detectors of Koskowich’s circuit
are not the same as those set forth in Claims 15 and
16. Thus, Claim 15 recites --a phase detector for
detecting a phase difference between an input signal
and said reference signal through multiple clock
cycles, and for providing a first phase detector
output signal representative of a detected phase
difference less than a single cycle, and for
providing a second phase detector output signal
representative of a detected phase difference
greater than a single cycle--(emphasis added). By
contrast, Koskowich teaches providing a single phase
detector, combined with a frequency detector.
Koskowich thus teaches away from the invention as
set forth in Claim 15, as he teaches using a
frequency detector to address the problem of cycle
slipping. Wong et al. is even less relevant than
Koskowich. There is no teaching nor suggestion in
either Koskowich or Wong et al. of detecting phase
differences greater than a single cycle, and
providing a signal representative thereof so as to
achieve the improved functionality provided by the
invention set forth in claim 15. (Brief, pages 13
and 14, underlining added.)
The Examiner responds that:
Koskowich’s phase detector is equivalent to the
recited first phase detector, which is used to
detect a phase difference less than a single cycle.
Moreover, Koskowich’s frequency detector is actually
a phase detector which detects a phase difference
greater than a cycle, which is equivalent to the
recited second phase detector. (Answer, pages 14
and 15.)
We agree with the Examiner that Koskowich’s phase
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007