Appeal No. 2000-2188 Page 16
Application No. 09/063,050
1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125,
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The court finds it “impermissible to use
the claims as a frame and the prior art references as a mosaic to
piece together a facsimile of the claimed invention.” Uniroyal,
Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434,
1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988), citing W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 220 USPQ 303, 312 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
Upon our review of Gazda, we find that Gazda teaches an
oscillator with extended frequency range using frequency
dividers. However, we fail to find any teaching or suggestion to
use frequency dividers in a voltage generator for dividing the
frequency of the clock signal. Furthermore, we fail to find any
teaching or suggestion for providing a clock signal generated by
a clock signal generator that communicates with the voltage
generator. Thus, we find no support for the Examiner’s
conclusion that modifying the prior art of Figure 1 with the
teachings of Gazda would have suggested Appellants’ claimed clock
signal generator having a frequency divider or a clock signal
with a variable dynamic range. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 2, 3 and 5 through 10
over Appellants’ prior art of Figure 1 and Gazda.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007