Appeal 2007-1650
Application 11/111,799
reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.
Continental Can Co. USA Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F2d 1264, 1268, 20
USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Examiner erred in rejecting claims 20, 21, 23,
26-28, 30, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Reviewing the findings of facts
cited above, and the application of the Walters reference to the limitations of
the claims as recited in the Answer (Pages 3 and 4), we find that the
Examiner has made a prima facie case for the rejection, having located in the
Walters reference elements associated to the claimed limitations. However,
the Appellants have raised three challenges to the rejection.
First, Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in applying the
Walters reference, as the clock generator in that reference “allows the
amount of voltage overlap between two CMOS phase clock signals to be
adjustably increased or decreased, but never eliminated.” (Br. 14). They
cite Figure 3(b) of Walters:
Curves indicating decline of Ø1 and rise of Ø2
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013