Appeal 2007-0869
Application 10/648,587
claimed. We recognize that the Bluetooth data sheets provided by the
Examiner teach circuits that make use of a reference oscillator external from
the chip. These data sheets do not teach that the same reference oscillator is
used for multiple circuits. While it is common knowledge that computers
systems typically have one oscillator for the system, we do not find evidence
of record that the problem solved by a single system clock in a computer
system applies to a device with a GPS unit and transceiver unit as claimed.
Accordingly, we do not find that the combination of McCarthy and Peterzell
teaches or suggests the limitations of independent claims 1 and 26.
Independent claim 16 recites “one and only one reference oscillator in
the housing providing mixing signal to the GPS receiver and the wireless
transceiver, the receiver and transceiver not sharing a mixer.” Thus, claim
16 is of different scope then independent claims 1 and 26. Nonetheless
claim 16 also recites that one oscillator provides input to a GPS unit and a
transceiver. As discussed above we do not find that the combination of
McCarthy and Peterzell teach or suggest this feature.
CONCLUSION
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of 8 through 16, 18 through 22,
and 26 through 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) to be in error as we do not find
that the combination of McCarthy in view of Peterzell teach or suggest the
limitations in independent claims 8, 16, and 26. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 through 16, 18 through 22, and
26 through 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013