Appeal No. 2000-2188 Page 13
Application No. 09/063,050
a clock signal. We note that signal OSC generated by the
oscillator (as depicted in Figure 2A) has the same properties of
the claimed clock signal (as depicted in Figure 5A) since clock
pulses are basically pulses generated by an oscillator.3
Therefore, the Examiner has met the burden of providing a prima
facie case of anticipation. Accordingly, the rejection of claims
1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over the admitted prior art in
Figure 1 is sustained.
We next consider the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 2, 3 and 5 through 10 based upon the combination of the
prior art of Figure 1 and Gazda. Appellants argue that Gazda
fails to provide any teachings or suggestions for modifying the
prior art of Figure 1 to overcome the deficiencies discussed
above. Appellants further point out that there is no suggestion
in any of the references for the Examiner’s proposed combination
(brief, page 12 and reply brief, page 6). Finally, Appellants
argue that the limitation of “variable dynamic range,” as recited
in claims 9 and 10, is not taught by any of the references
(brief, page 11 and reply brief, page 5).
3 Microsoft Press Dictionary, 2nd edition , 1994, pp. 76,
283 (copy of which accompanies this decision).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007