Appeal 2007-1293
Application 10/745,124
As stated in our Findings of Fact, resistors 628 and 658 connect the output of
the comparator to the source voltage VCC. Fact 5. While the source voltage VCC
is also connected to the input of the comparator via resistor 616, we do not find
that this is a feedback path. Resistor 616 is used as part of a voltage divider to
provide a reference voltage generated from the voltage VCC. One skilled in the art
would recognize that VCC is a constant voltage and as such there is no feedback
path through resistor 628 and 616. Further, one would recognize that the same
voltage divider 616, 618 could not be used for both comparators, as discussed in
Fact 4, if it were a feedback path. Thus, we do not find that Konopka teaches a
feedback resistor as recited in independent claim 1, and we accordingly do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3 as anticipated by Konopka.
ISSUES
RELATED TO ANTICIPATION BASED UPON LIEDER
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3 and 9
through 10 as anticipated by Lieder is in error. Appellant states that claims 1, 9,
and 10 recite a circuit with an RC time constant sufficient to prevent single event
transients from affecting the logic device output. (Br. 14.) Appellant argues that
Lieder does not address single event transients, and that the transients filtered in
Lieder are “several orders of magnitude smaller and would likely have no effect at
all on the comparator of Lieder.” (Br. 15.) Further, Appellant argues that the
signals of Lieder if used in the present invention would not result in proper
operation. Finally, Appellant asserts that “[t]he functional language reference
single event transients involves a structure that is quite different than that of
Lieder.” (Br. 15.)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013