Ex Parte Van Der Tang et al - Page 2




             Appeal No. 2004-0608                                                                              
             Application No. 09/886,198                                                                        


                   Appellants’ invention relates to a quadrature HF oscillator with isolating amplifier.       
             An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1,             
             which is reproduced below.                                                                        
                   1.  A quadrature HF ring oscillator (1) comprising at least two cascaded                    
                   filters (2, 3) each having a filter output (O1, O2) to be coupled to a load                 
                   (ZI, ZQ), characterised in that at least the two filters (2, 3) comprises an                
                   isolating amplifier (T5-T8) coupled between the filter output (O1, 02) and                  
                   the load (ZI, ZQ).                                                                          
                   The prior art of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed               
             claims is as follows:                                                                             
             Cytera et al. (Cytera)                 5,298,870                       Mar. 29, 1994              
                   Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Cytera.             
                   Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and               
             appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the examiner's               
             answer (Paper No. 17, mailed August 8, 2003) for the examiner's reasoning in support              
             of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 16, filed May 5, 2003) for                 
             appellants’ arguments thereagainst.                                                               


                                                  OPINION                                                      
                   In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to             
             appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the              
             respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner.  As a consequence of             
             our review, we make the determinations which follow.                                              
                                                      2                                                        




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007