Appeal No. 1996-3619
Application No. 08/397,021
the line frequency (column 8, line 63), we are not persuaded
as to why this line frequency would not be considered a
predetermined desired value as set forth in Appellant’s
claims. We are similarly unpersuaded by Appellant’s
argument (Brief, page 6) that Kraus lacks a teaching of
supplying the start-stop oscillator 10 with an on/off
reference signal as claimed. We note, however, that in making
this argument, Appellant has directed our attention to the
Figure 3 embodiment of Kraus. We agree with Appellant that,
in this embodiment in which the oscillator is locked on to the
line frequency , there is no explicit disclosure of a
reference signal being supplied directly to the start-stop
oscillator. Our review of the Examiner’s analysis in the
Answer, however, reveals that the Examiner specifically
identified start-stop oscillator 10 in the Figure 1 embodiment
which directly receives the reference synchronizing signal fH
as corresponding to the appealed claim limitations. In making
the rejection based on anticipation, the Examiner has made a
finding (Answer, page 7) that the skilled artisan would
appreciate that a start-stop oscillator, as its name implies,
is responsive either to a plurality of input signals or to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007