Appeal 2007-0869
Application 10/648,587
REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 8 through 16, 18 through 22, and 26 through 28 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over McCarthy in view of
Peterzell. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 3 and 4 of the
Answer. Throughout the opinion we make reference to the Brief and Reply
Brief (received January 19, 2006, and April 10, 2006 respectively), and the
Answer (mailed August 14, 2006) for the respective details thereof.
ISSUES
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 8, 16, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error. Appellants assert
that Peterzell fails to teach a circuit that processes two different signal types
using a common oscillator and only a common oscillator. (Br. 5)
The Examiner asserts that the rejection is proper. The Examiner, on
page 3 of the Answer, states that the Appellants are confusing the local
oscillators with and reference oscillator. The Examiner finds that the
reference oscillator of Peterzell is common to the local oscillators. (Answer
5).
Thus, the issue before us is whether Peterzell teaches or suggests a
device where a GPS receiver and a wireless transceiver that share a reference
oscillator.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013