Appeal 2007-1293
Application 10/745,124
prevent single event transients from adversely affecting the logic device output.”
This limitation is virtually identical to the limitations directed to the RC delay
circuit discussed above (analysis related to anticipation based on Lieder) with
respect to claim 1. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, we interpret this
limitation of independent claim 6 as being broad and encompassing any RC circuit
which has a time constant sufficient to filter out the high frequency noise
associated with single transient events. Which is to say, claim 6 does not define
the frequency break point below which a signal is passes and above which a signal
is blocked, rather claim 6 only recites a type of frequency blocked without
indicating what is passed.
As discussed above in our Findings of Fact related to Konopka, we find that
Konopka teaches an RC circuit connected to the output of a comparator. Fact 7.
This RC circuit acts as a low pass filter. Fact 8. As recognized by Appellant,
Brief page 10, the single transient events are of shorter duration (higher frequency)
than the signals Konopka is concerned with, Konopka being concerned with
filtering signals on the order of 7.7 ms (a lower frequency than is associated with a
single event transient). However, because the RC filter of Konopka (which filters
out all frequencies above the cutoff frequency) has a time constant sufficient to
filter out the lower frequency signal, the filter will also filter out the higher
frequencies associated with single event transients. Thus, we find that Konopka’s
device does perform the function of filtering out noise from single event transients
and as such prevents them from adversely affecting the logic device.
For the forgoing reasons, Appellant’s contentions have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 6 through 8.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013