Appeal No. 2003-1208
Application 09/590,805
This argument is not persuasive because the difference in
radiation-induced degradation characteristics can be sensed if
the transistors are electrically connected in parallel. Even if
Kalnitsky’s device for generating a differential signal (col. 3,
line 46) is a differential amplifier as argued by the appellants,
such a differential amplifier has two input leads.6 Each of
these two leads necessarily is capable of being connected to an
output lead from each of two transistors electrically connected
in parallel.
For the above reasons we conclude that the prima facie case
of obviousness of the integrated circuit claimed in the
appellants’ claim 1 has not been effectively rebutted by the
appellants. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 and
claim 2 that stands or falls therewith.
Claim 5
The appellants’ claim 5, which depends from claim 1,
requires that the integrated circuit further comprises an
arrangement of memory cells operatively coupled to an address
decoder. The appellants merely assert that this claim feature is
6 See McGraw-Hill Electronics Dictionary 146 (McGraw-Hill,
5th ed. 1994), a copy of which is provided to the appellants with
this decision.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007