Appeal 2007-0468
Application 10/750,320
rejected claims 3 to 5, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the
teachings of Mizuno and Klemmer, the Examiner rejected claims 28 and 30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Mizuno.
Appellants contend that a leakage current and a frequency related
thereto are not described in the reference to Mizuno (Br. 12; Reply Br. 2 -
4).
We hereby reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 6 to 18,
26, 27, and 29, and reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 3 to 5, 19,
20, 28, and 30.
ISSUE
Does Mizuno teach a leakage current and a frequency related thereto?
FINDINGS OF FACT
According to the Appellants, the control unit 108 maintains a
substantially constant ratio between the frequency related to the target
timing circuit 104 and the frequency related to the leakage timing circuit
106. The target timing circuit and the leakage timing circuit are both formed
on a substrate 102.
Mizuno describes a control circuit CNT used in connection with a
logic circuit LOG and a variable-frequency oscillation circuit OSC (Figures
1 to 4 and 12).
The Examiner relied on Klemmer because “figure 3 shows a timing
circuit having counter 82 coupled to the ring oscillator 80 for the purpose of
increasing output frequency” (Answer 6).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013