Appeal No. 1998-2672
Application No. 07/955,768
3). Given this disclosure of Ernst, it is unclear how and in
what manner the Examiner would combine Ernst with Averbuch to
arrive at Appellant's claimed invention.
We further agree with Appellant's argument (Brief, page
8) that, even assuming arguendo that Averbuch and Ernst could
be combined, the resulting structure would fall short of
meeting the requirements of the appealed claims. In our view,
as also asserted by Appellant, the combination of Averbuch and
Ernst at best would result in a system in which the primary
and backup clocking systems would each be synchronized in
operation permitting a glitchless transfer between the primary
and backup clocking systems. Such a system, however, would be
lacking in any provision for improving the stability of the
backup clocking system by generating characterization
information related to the backup clocking signal by utilizing
the primary clocking signal.1
Although not considered by the Examiner according to the record, we have1
undertaken a consideration of an alternative interpretation of Averbuch in which the
signal from central site 100 is interpreted as Appellant’s claimed higher stability
first clocking signal from an external source while the local clock signal in each of
Averbuch’s base stations 102, 103 is interpreted as the claimed lower stability second
clocking signal. This interpretation of Averbuch, however, also fails to meet the
claimed requirements since the lower stability clocking signal is not used for
synchronization when the higher stability clocking signal is absent or unavailable.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007