Details: The Figure illustrates a patentable invention (apparatus) as a block diagram, and the use of Patentics for its description. This is a phase locked loop (PLL), comprising:
reference counter
phase comparator
digital to analog converter (DAC)
low pass filter (LPF)
voltage controlled oscillator (VCO)
VCO counter
digital multiplier
reference signal (bus)
VCO signal (bus)

Structure: the parts are standard prior art parts; the structure of the PLL is novel, due to the use of a reference bus 609E and VCO bus 608E rather than one wire for each of the reference and VCO signals. This novel structure (using buses of digital info rather than single wire signals) requires a bus phase comparator 602E. The new structure also includes a multiplier 607E in the feedback loop. The structure of the apparatus can be described as an interconnections list, for example:

601E,2 > 602E,1 (port 2 of block 601E is connected to port 1 of 602E, etc.
602E,2 > 603E,1 (port 2 of block 601E is connected to port 1 of 602E, etc.
and parts list

601E = reference counter
602E = phase comparator

These lists can be entered into a computer, to allow automatic comparison with other structures, until a match is possibly found.

The operation as a PLL is also novel, due to the new structure.
There are advantages to this structure, for example faster settling time, low phase noise, output signal with lower phase noise, etc.

Three US patents were granted for this PLL system.

This presentation complies with patentability criteria:
The patent application should clearly present what has been invented and how this relates to the claims, to answer the question:
"The goal is to answer the question `What did applicants invent?` " In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902, 907, 214 USPQ 682, 687 (CCPA 1982).
Accord, e.g., Arrhythmia Research Tech. v. Corazonix Corp., 958 F.2d 1053, 1059, 22 USPQ2d 1033, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1992).)

The patent application should describe any Utility and/or Practical Application of the Invention, how it is useful; The claimed invention as a whole must be useful and accomplish a practical application, it must produce a “useful, concrete and tangible result.
See State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group Inc., 149 F.3d 1368, 1373-74, 47 USPQ2d 1596, 1601-02 (Fed. Cir. 1998).