Appeal No. 20000-0717
Application 08/906,676
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We REVERSE.
The initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the claimed subject matter rests
with the examiner.
The examiner maintains, with regard to instant claims 1-8
and 10-20, that the tracking filter shown in Figure 2 of
Rogers discloses the instant claimed subject matter but for an
integrator (low pass filter) placed after the phase
comparator, and a frequency divider placed after the input
signal source for reducing the frequency of the input signal
source.
However, the examiner still contends that the claimed
subject matter would have been obvious, within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. 103, because it was “notoriously well known” to use
a low pass filter for cleaning high frequency noise and to use
a frequency divider as a means for reducing frequency.
Therefore, concludes the examiner, it would have been obvious
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007