Appeal No. 2001-1871
Application No. 09/082,449
OPINION
Appellants assert the section 102 rejection of claim 7 is in error because, inter
alia, the oscillator which is part of phase-locked loop 27 in Toda is VCO 271 (Fig. 6),
rather than oscillator 36 (Fig. 4), as contemplated by the rejection. (Brief at 5.) The
examiner responds (Answer at 6) that the frequency provided to phase lock loop (PLL)
27, as shown in Figure 6 of the reference, comes from oscillator 36 of Figure 4. The
examiner concludes that oscillator 36 is part of PLL 27.
However, we agree in substance with appellants’ position. We do not consider
an oscillator that generates an input (e.g., oscillator 36) to a system (e.g., PLL 27) to
comprise part of the system. Moreover, Toda does not refer to oscillator 36 as part of
PLL 27. While mere terminology in a reference is not necessarily determinative of how
the disclosure may be interpreted by one skilled in the art, the examiner has provided
no supporting evidence that Toda might be interpreted by the artisan as anything
different from its express disclosure.
The rejection of claim 7 (Answer at 3) further asserts that Toda discloses a
“frequency measurement circuit 31-32” (Fig. 4) and a “frequency adjustment circuit 13.”
However, as clearly shown in Figure 4, and further described at columns 5 through 7 of
the reference, component extraction unit 31 and frequency counter 32 form part of
frequency difference detection means 13. In any event, as appellants point out (Reply
Brief at 4), instant claim 7 requires that a frequency difference is measured between a
nominal frequency of the carrier and a frequency “of the phase-locked loop’s oscillator.”
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007