Appeal No. 1998-1365 Page 7
Application No. 08/663,969
complement that [which is] disclosed ....’” In re Bode, 550
F.2d 656, 660, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re
Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 424 (CCPA 1973)).
Those persons “must be presumed to know something” about the
art “apart from what the references disclose.” In re Jacoby,
309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962). We next
address the appellants’ arguments regarding the obviousness of
the claims.
Regarding claims 27, 28, 31-33, 35-37, 40-42, and 44, the
appellants argue, “neither the Vanderspool patent nor the
Marshall patent singularly or in combination teaches the
limitation of determining the alignments between a clock
signal and a reference clock signal by counting the number of
cycles of the clock signal occurring in a predetermined period
of time.” (Appeal Br. at 7.)
“In the patentability context, claims are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretations. Moreover,
limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007