Ex Parte Nash - Page 10

             Appeal 2007-1293                                                                                         
             Application 10/745,124                                                                                   

             shorter duration (higher frequency) than the polarity changes being filtered out by                      
             Lieder’s RC filter.  Thus, if the RC filter of Lieder (which filters out all frequencies                 
             above the cutoff frequency, see Fact 15) has a time constant sufficient to filter out                    
             the lower frequency, polarity change signal, the filter will also filter out the higher                  
             frequencies associated with single event transients.   Accordingly, we find that                         
             Lieder’s device performs the function of filtering out noise from single event                           
             transients and prevents them from adversely affecting the logic device.                                  
                    Appellant’s argument, on page 15 of the Brief, that if the signals of Lieder                      
             were applied to the Appellant’s invention would cause flipping of the claimed                            
             circuit between different logic levels, is immaterial.  The Examiner has shown that                      
             Lieder teaches all of the elements of Appellant’s claimed invention.                                     
                    For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of                        
             claim 1 and the claims grouped with claim 1, claims 2, 3, 9, and 10.                                     

                                                      ISSUES                                                          
                                RELATED TO OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS                                                     
                                             BASED UPON LIEDER                                                        

                    On page 15 of the Brief, Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of                      
             claims 4 and 5 as being obvious over Lieder and Nishibe is in error for the reasons                      
             discussed with respect to claim 1.  As discussed above, we are not persuaded by                          
             Appellant’s arguments directed to claim 1.  Accordingly, we sustain the                                  
             Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 5 for the reasons discussed with respect to                         
             claim 1.                                                                                                 
                    On page 16 of the Brief, Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of                      
             claims 6 through 8, and 11 as being obvious over Lieder in view of Yanagihara is                         
             in error.  Appellant asserts that claim 6 recites a RC delay circuit which has an RC                     

                                                         10                                                           


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013