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.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007