Appeal No. 2001-0588
Application No. 08/609,308
Moreover, even if Hashimoto and Cheah were combined, the instant claimed
subject matter would still not be achieved since there would have been no apparent
reason to connect the output of Hashimoto’s frequency divider 12 to mix with an RF
waveform. Appellant relies on the claim language, “wherein said second output
frequency is operable for mixing with an RF waveform.” We find that this language,
when interpreted in light of the specification, does require an actual connection of the
second output frequency to an RF mixer. As such, if the second output frequency in
Hashimoto is the output of divider 12, as it must be to meet the rest of the claim
language, then there is no connection of this output to a mixer for mixing with an RF
waveform and there is no convincing reason provided by the examiner for making such
a connection. Even if Cheah discloses a “second output frequency...operable for mixing
with an RF waveform,” there would have been no reason to use such a teaching to
arbitrarily pick off an output frequency from the output of divider 12 in the phase lock
loop of Hashimoto and mix this with an RF waveform.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Thus, we also will not sustain the rejection of claim 2, or of claims 3 and 4 (since
Kramer does not provide for the deficiencies of Hashimoto and Cheah) under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007