Appeal No. 2006-2707
Application No. 09/749,792
reduction of the temperature-related frequency. Particularly, at
page 8 of the Appeal Brief,3 Appellant states the following:
[A]t most the combination of Georgiou
with McDermott yields Georgiou’s device plus
an improved PLL. The performance demanding
level input to determine a rate of
temperature-related frequency reduction,
called for independent claims 1, 7 and 12, is
totally absent from the combination of
Georgiou and McDermott.
In order for us to decide the question of obviousness,
“[t]he first inquiry must be into exactly what the claims
define.” In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548
(CCPA 1970). “Analysis begins with a key legal question-- what
is the invention claimed ?”...Claim interpretation...will
normally control the remainder of the decisional process.”
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567-68, 1
USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
We note that representative claim 1
reads in part as follows:
[T]he circuit including a performance
demanding level input to determine a rate of
the temperature-related frequency reduction.
3 We note that Appellant reiterates these same arguments at pages 2 through 4
of the Reply Brief and at pages 2 and 3 of the Supplemental Reply Brief.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007