Ex Parte Lieder et al - Page 4



          Appeal No. 2006-2007                                                                        
          Application No. 09/996,225                                                                  
               The focus of Appellants’ arguments is that the arrangement                             
          of transistor 59, resistor 591 and capacitor 592 of Hwang does                              
          not reasonably correspond to the claimed low pass filter (brief,                            
          page 3).  Appellants further point out that the arrangement of                              
          these components do not remove high frequency components and                                
          therefore, is not a low pass filter (brief, page 4).  The                                   
          Examiner responds by stating that Hwang provides for components                             
          similar to a series combination of a resistor (106) and a                                   
          capacitor (130) providing an output at node B shown in                                      
          Appellants’ Figure 1 (answer, page 10).  Appellants argue that                              
          the components identified by the Examiner as making up the low                              
          pass filter actually pass the extremely high frequencies and fail                           
          to constitute a low pass filter (brief, page 4; reply brief,                                
          pages 2-3).                                                                                 




               After a review of Hwang, we agree with Appellants that the                             
          arrangement of transistor 59, resistor 591 and capacitor 592,                               
          shown in Figure 1 of the reference, is not a low pass filter.                               
          Such arrangement, as positioned between nodes A and C, is not the                           
          same as what is shown between nodes A and C of Appellants’ Figure                           
                                          4                                                           











Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007