Appeal No. 2001-0588
Application No. 08/609,308
Thus, it is not even clear why the examiner is applying two references since the
examiner appears to be saying that each one of the references separately discloses the
claimed subject matter. But the examiner concludes by stating that it would have been
obvious “to specifically provide in Hashimoto, a second output frequency being operable
for mixing with an RF waveform, as taught by Cheah” contending that the combination
would have been motivated “by a desire to provide a lower operating frequency for the
local oscillator which further lowers the system cost,” referring to column 3, lines 30-40,
of Cheah [Paper No. 15-page 3]. Based on this conclusion, it would appear that the
examiner, once again, relies on Cheah merely for a showing of a second output
frequency being operable for mixing with a RF waveform.
In any event, the only reason provided by the examiner for making the
combination is misplaced. While the examiner contends that the combination would
have been made in order “to provide a lower operating frequency for the local oscillator
which further lowers the system cost,” as pointed out by appellants, at page 8 of the
brief, it is not apparent why the artisan would have constructed the claimed invention
having a higher oscillator frequency when the teaching relied on (Cheah) directs the
artisan to a lower frequency local oscillator.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007