Appeal No. 1996-3619 Application No. 08/397,021 differing input values of a single input signal. This finding remains unchallenged by Appellant who, rather than submit a Reply Brief, has chosen to let his position on the record be reflected solely by arguments in the main Brief.2 In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed limitations are present in the disclosure of Kraus, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 19, and 21 is sustained. Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 4, 11, and 22, we sustain this rejection as well. As the basis for the obviousness rejection, the Examiner proposes (Answer, page 4) to modify the clock signal generator disclosure of Kraus by relying on Hirao to supply the missing teaching of changing the frequency 2 The Examiner (Answer, page 7, footnote) has made reference to U.S. Patent No. 4,220,964 to Yamagiwa as supporting the finding related to reference inputs to start-stop oscillators. Also, in the footnote at page 6 of the Answer, the Examiner cites U.S. Patent No. 4,613,827 to Takamori as an example of a teaching of a phase-locking oscillator providing a control of the frequency of a start-stop oscillator. As neither of these references are part of the Examiner’s rejections of the appealed claims, we decline to rule on the merits of their applicability to the issues to be decided in this appeal. We would point out however that, to whatever extent the disclosures in these references support the Examiner’s position, such disclosures remain unchallenged by any response from Appellant. 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007