Appeal No. 2000-2188 Page 14
Application No. 09/063,050
The Examiner’s rejection is based on modifying the voltage
generator of the prior art with the frequency divider of Gazda
“to achieve a desired frequency if the input frequency is not
within the desired value or range” (answer, page 4). In response
to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts that expanding the
spectrum of an oscillator by adding a frequency divider is
“normal practice for one skilled in the art” (answer, page 7).
The Examiner further argues that the “variable dynamic range,” as
recited in claims 9 and 10, is a well-known characteristic of
clock signals (answer, page 8).
The initial burden of establishing reasons for
unpatentability rests on the examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1446, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Where, as
here, a conclusion of obviousness is premised upon a combination
of references, the examiner must identify a reason, suggestion,
or motivation which would have led an inventor to combine those
references. Pro-Mold & Tool Co. V. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc.,
75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629, (Fed. Cir. 1996).
However, “the Board must not only assure that the requisite
findings are made, based on evidence of record, but must also
explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007