Appeal No. 1999-0395
Application No. 08/515,900
Appellants’ argument (brief, page 10) that “if RAM
circuit 32 of Garner . . . were combined with the teachings of
the other references, it would have been necessary to provide
a digital-to-analog converter as a frequency synthesizer, as
opposed to a clock oscillation means including a variable
capacitance diode” is without merit since the examiner is not
relying on the frequency synthesizer 16 in Garner (Figure 2)
to demonstrate the obviousness of the claim 1 subject matter.
As indicated supra, the examiner’s proposed modification is to
the oscillator, and not to the frequency synthesizer. In the
absence of evidence, appellants’ argument (brief, page 11)
that the proposed modification would not work is likewise
without merit. Appellants’ argument (brief, page 11) that
“the frequency of the oscillator circuit is changed in a
digital manner” in Smith is not understood in light of the use
of digital-to-analog converters 62 in Smith (Figure 1).
Based upon the foregoing, the obviousness rejection of
claim 1 is sustained in view of the teachings of Garner and
Smith. In affirming a multiple reference rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103, the Board may rely on less than the total number
of references relied on by the examiner. In re Bush, 296 F.2d
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007