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