Ex parte Rogers

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 24, 1998

08300028 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 24, 1998)

Application for patent filed September 2, 1994.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte ALAN C. ROGERS
_____________
Appeal No. 96-4006
Application 08/300,0281
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, MARTIN, and JERRY SMITH, Administrative
Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 96-4006
Application No. 08/300,028
2
Appeal No. 96-4006
Application No. 08/300,028
According to the examiner (Supplemental Answer, page 2),2
the latter amendment had the effect of overcoming the
indefiniteness rejection of claims 1, 5, 8, 13 and 17.
3
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 19. In a first Amendment After Final (paper number
7), claims 1, 5 and 13 were amended. In a second Amendment
After Final (paper number 15), claims 1, 5, 8, 13 and 17 were
amended.2
The disclosed invention relates to a phase locked loop
clock generator that includes a frequency changer that changes
the frequency of a global clock signal while maintaining a
reference clock signal and a feedback clock signal at first
and second constant frequencies, respectively.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A phase locked loop clock generator comprising:
a phase locking circuit for generating a first clock
signal in response to a reference clock signal and a feedback
clock signal; and
a frequency changer for generating a global clock signal
for said phase locked loop clock generator and said feedback
clock signal in response to said first clock signal, said
frequency changer changing the frequency of said global clock
Appeal No. 96-4006
Application No. 08/300,028
4
signal in response to a control signal, with said reference
clock signal and feedback clock signal being maintained at a
first and second constant frequency, respectively.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Aldridge 3,898,579 Aug. 5, 1975
Volk et al. (Volk) 4,829,258 May 9, 1989
Hotta et al. (Hotta) 5,133,064 July 21, 1992
Claims 1, 5, 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Volk.
Claims 4 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Volk in view of applicant’s admitted
prior art.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13 through 17 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Aldridge in view of Hotta.
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Volk.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answers for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse all of the rejections.
According to the examiner (Supplemental Answer, pages 3
Appeal No. 96-4006
Application No. 08/300,028
5
and 6), Volk discloses a phase locked loop clock generator
(Figures 6 and 13) in which the reference clock signal is
maintained at a
Appeal No. 96-4006
Application No. 08/300,028
6
first constant frequency, and the feedback clock frequency is
maintained at a second constant frequency.
Appellant argues (Reply Brief, page 3) that “Volk . . .
teaches away from the invention by requiring ‘the primary loop
to be adjusted . . . by simply adjusting the reference clock
frequency’ (Col. 10, lines 3-9) (emphasis added). (see
applicant’s Appeal Brief, pp. 3-4).” We agree. Volk states
throughout his disclosure (Abstract; column 2, lines 28
through 30; column 10, lines 3 through 9; and column 11, lines
40 through 42) that the loop frequency characteristics can be
programmed by adjusting the reference clock frequency. Thus,
the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 5, 8 and 9
is reversed because the reference clock is not maintained at a
constant frequency.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 4 and 12 is
reversed because applicant’s admitted prior art coupled with
Volk neither teaches nor would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art keeping the reference clock at a
constant frequency.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 18 and 19 is
reversed because the teachings of Volk would not have
Appeal No. 96-4006
Application No. 08/300,028
7
suggested to the skilled artisan a constant reference clock
frequency.
Turning to the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 3, 6,
7, 10, 11 and 13 through 17, appellant does not challenge the
propriety of modifying the teachings of Aldridge with those of
Hotta. Appellant does, however, argue that “the Aldridge
feedback loop does not remain synchronous with the Aldridge
reference clock signal” (Brief, page 6), and that Hotta allows
the “reference signal to lose synchronization with its
feedback signal during operation” (Brief, page 7).
Appellant is able to maintain a constant feedback clock
signal by using two separate dividers with differently varying
divisors. The examiner’s contentions (Supplemental Answer,
pages 4, 5 and 7) to the contrary notwithstanding, Aldridge’s
single divider 17 (Figure 1) is incapable of performing such a
feat because the divider 17 constantly changes the frequency
of the feedback clock signal f /n (column 1, lines 24 through0
30; and column 3, lines 40 through 44). Hotta discloses a
clock generator (Figure 21; column 14, lines 4 through 9)
which uses two separate frequency dividers 1304. Hotta does
not, however, disclose varying the divisors in the two
Appeal No. 96-4006
Application No. 08/300,028
8
dividers. In summary, Hotta, like Aldridge, is incapable of
keeping the feedback clock signal at a constant frequency.
For this reason, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 2,
3, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13 through 17 is reversed.
Appeal No. 96-4006
Application No. 08/300,028
9
DECISION
In view of the reversal of all of the rejections, the
decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN C. MARTIN ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
svt
Appeal No. 96-4006
Application No. 08/300,028
10
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
3025 Totterdell Street
Oakland, CA 94611-1742