Appeal No. 1998-3035
Application No. 08/580,036
1961); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72
(CCPA 1966).
It is further our view that, even assuming, arguendo, the
correctness of the Examiner’s assertion as to the recognition
to the skilled artisan of a skew to clock frequency
relationship, such fact alone does not address the issue of
obviousness with respect to the specific limitations of
appealed independent claims 6 and 20-24. Each of these claims
sets forth a specific relative skew value in relation to
either clock frequency or clock signal duty cycle. The
Examiner has provided no indication as to how and in what
manner the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to
modify either of Yoshizawa or Nagasaki to arrive at the
claimed invention. Further, since neither Yoshizawa or
Nagasaki are concerned with a relative skew problem, we find
lacking any motivation to attempt a modification in the first
instance. The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in
the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972 F. 2d
1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007