Appeal No. 2003-1208
Application 09/590,805
The examiner argues that although Kalnitsky does not
explicitly state that upon exposure to a sufficient amount of
ionizing radiation a first device turns on before a second device
and thus affects operation of the second device, these features
are inherent in Kalnitsky because Kalnitsky’s hard device turns
on after the regular device, and when one device turns on, it
naturally affects the operation of a second device connected
thereto (answer, page 7).
The appellants’ claim 22 requires that when the integrated
circuit is exposed to a sufficient amount of radiation, the
safeguard device turns on before the utile device. Kalnitsky
discloses the reverse of this requirement. Kalnitsky’s
transistor which is radiation unhardened corresponds to the
appellants’ utile device and, when the integrated circuit is
exposed to a sufficient amount of radiation, turns on before the
radiation-hard transistor. Kalnitsky’s radiation-hard
transistor, therefore, is not a safeguard device. Kalnitsky’s
radiation-unhardened transistor cannot be a safeguard device, as
that term is defined by the appellants, because it is not
“designed to interrupt the functioning of all or part of an
integrated circuit when the integrated circuit is exposed to
ionizing radiation” (specification, page 8, lines 30-31).
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007