Appeal No. 2002-2169 Page 16
Application No. 09/163,286
Here, claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "a reference
oscillator controlled by said pulse-per-second output and providing a reference
frequency with a timing accuracy directly related to a timing accuracy of said atomic
time standard. . . ." Giving the representative claim its broadest, reasonable
construction, the limitations require using a pulse-per-second ("PPS") output to control
a reference oscillator in order to impart a timing accuracy directly related to that of an
atomic time standard.
The question of obviousness is "based on underlying factual determinations
including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258
F.3d 1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1697(Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994,
998, 50 USPQ 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d
1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). "Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references." In re Merck, 800 F.2d, 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380
(Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
1981)). "'Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.'" Cable Elec. Prods., Inc. v. Genmark,
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007