Appeal No. 2003-1208
Application 09/590,805
Claim 3
Because the examiner does not rely upon Tursky for any
disclosure that remedies the above-discussed deficiency in
Murdock and the admitted prior art as to claim 1 from which
claim 3 depends, we reverse the rejection of claim 3 over Murdock
in view of the admitted prior art and Tursky.
Claim 22
The examiner argues that although Murdock and the admitted
prior art do 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 Murdock because soft
devices turn on before regular devices, and hard devices turn on
after regular devices, and when one device turns on, it naturally
affects the operation of a second device connected thereto
(answer, page 7).
As discussed above regarding the rejection of claim 1 over
Murdock in view of the admitted prior art, Murdock’s soft diodes
conduct at a lower voltage than the magnetoresistive sensor
element, and Murdock says nothing about the effect of ionizing
view of the admitted prior art is reversed.
20
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007