Appeal No. 2000-2188 Page 15
Application No. 09/063,050
the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61
USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
A review of Gazda and Appellants’ prior art of Figure 1
reveals no teaching related to a clock signal generator that
communicates with the voltage generator, as recited in claims 7
and 8, dependent upon claims 1 and 4 respectively. We further
find that the Examiner has failed to provide evidence in support
of “variable dynamic range,” as recited in claims 9 and 10, being
a well-known characteristic of clock signals and obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to the features of
claims 2 and 5, as well as claims 3 and 6 which are dependent
thereupon, requiring a frequency divider for outputting an
internal clock signal applied to the pump controller, we note
that Gazda merely uses programmable divider circuits in an
oscillator. The fixed frequency divider of Gazda is replaced
with a programmable one in order to expand the frequency range of
a voltage controlled crystal oscillator (col. 4, lines 24-33).
The Federal Circuit states that “[t]he mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner
does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification.” In re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007