Appeal No. 1997-1505 Page 9
Application No. 08/580,778
page 4) that the language “second circuit arrangement for
locking to [sic: the] data ....” is indefinite. According to
the examiner, the specification only refers to locking the
frequency, not the data. The appellant asserts that the data
is locked when a specific count provides the required
reference voltage, and fuses are blown which lock the data.
We find (specification, page 7) that the data nodes for the
fuses cut, will lock the data to a logic state of 1, and the
data nodes for the fuses that are not cut will be held at a
logic state of 0. Appellant incorrectly states (brief, page
10) that if the count is 9, the fuses connecting nodes B and C
are blown. According to the specification (page 7), the
opposite will happen. At a count of 9, the fuses for data
nodes A and D will be blown, not the fuses for data nodes B
and C.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the data are locked to a
fixed value, at least for the data nodes where the fuses have
been blown, which also locks the frequency of the phase lock
loop. Additionally, we are not in agreement with the
examiner’s assertions (answer, page 4) that the method steps
of lines 18-23 of claim 13 “have nothing to do with . . . the
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007