Appeal 2007-1293
Application 10/745,124
ISSUES
RELATED TO OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
BASED UPON KONOPKA
On pages 15 and 16 of the Brief, Appellant contends that the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 6 through 8 as being obvious over Konopka and Yanagihara is
in error. Specifically, Appellant argues that claim 6 recites a RC delay circuit
which has an RC time constant sufficient to prevent single event transients from
adversely impacting the logic device output. Appellant reasons that neither
Konopka nor Yanagihara teach or suggest the claimed RC delay circuit has a time
constant sufficient to prevent a single event transients from adversely affecting the
desired logic device. (Br. 16.)
The Examiner contends that the rejection of claims 6 through 8 is proper.
The Examiner’s statement discussed above with respect to claim 1 is applied to this
rejection of claims 6 through 8.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions present us with the issue of whether Konopka
teaches an RC delay circuit which has a time constant sufficient to prevent single
event transients from adversely affecting the logic circuit as recited in independent
claim 6 and the claims grouped therewith, claims 7 and 8.
ANALYSIS
RELATED TO OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
BASED UPON KONOPKIA
Independent claim 6 recites an RC delay circuit coupled to the comparator
output … wherein the RC delay circuit has an RC time constant sufficient to
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013