Appeal No. 2000-0702
Application 08/653,306
by reason of appeal is regarded as abandoned and will not be
considered. It is our function as a court to decide disputed
issues, not to create them.”).
At the outset, we note (brief at page 10) that appellants
elect to have claim 6 stand or fall with claim 4.
Now we consider the two combinations of references for the
rejection of representative claim 4.
Rein and Naka
In response to Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 (answer at
pages 3 and 4) over this combination, Appellants argue (brief at
page 12) that “[i]t is pointed out that an XOR gate [element 111
of Naka] is generally not interpreted as a multiplier by a person
of skill in the art.” The Examiner responds (answer at page 6)
that “the Naka reference shows in Figures 3 and 4 that the XOR
gate 111 provides an output signal (b) having twice the frequency
of the input signal (a) by XORing the input signal (a) with a
delayed input signal. Thus, the XOR gate 111 is seen as a
‘multiplier device’ because it operates as a frequency
multiplier.”
We disagree with the Examiner’s characterization of element
111 of Naka as the recited multiplier. We note that the output
(b) is the result of the operation of elements 251 and 111 and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007