Appeal No. 1996-3619
Application No. 08/397,021
not to frequency adjustment to a predetermined value, as in
the claims on appeal. After careful review of the Kraus
reference in light of the arguments of record, however, we are
in agreement with the Examiner’s position as stated in the
Answer. As pointed out by the Examiner (Answer, pages 3 and
4), Kraus (at column 3, lines 9-18 and in claim 4) provides a
clear disclosure of the adjustment of oscillator frequency.
We further find Appellant’s contention that Kraus
provides no oscillator frequency adjustment to a desired
predetermined value to be unfounded. In taking this position,
Appellant refers to column 10, lines 10-21 of Kraus which is
part of a description of the embodiment illustrated in Figure
3. In Appellant’s interpretation, Kraus is suggesting
frequency adjustment of the oscillator to achieve a desired
phase relationship and not to reach a predetermined desired
frequency value. We do not agree. In our view, in the very
excerpt from Krause cited by Appellant, i.e. column 10, lines
10-21), we find a clear suggestion to adjust the frequency of
oscillator 10 to achieve a desired value. Since the
description of the circuitry of Figure 3 of Krause is directed
to the embodiment in which the oscillator 10 is locked on to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007