Ex parte Laude

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 25, 2001

08567379 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 25, 2001)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte DAVID P. LAUDE
_____________
Appeal No. 1999-1553
Application No. 08/567,379
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KRASS, LALL, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-6, 8-14 and
16-22, all of the pending claims.
The invention is directed to the noise problem to which certain electrical circuits are
susceptible. Rather than reducing the noise, as in conventional circuits, the present
invention seeks to give the circuits noise immunity by coupling noise
Appeal No. 1999-1553
Application No. 08/567,379
2
generating components to a distributed electrical plane and inducing noise onto the
distributed electrical plane. Coupling means, such as capacitors, for coupling the noise
susceptible circuits to the distributed electrical plane more evenly, distributes noise to the
noise susceptible circuits so that the noise is common and indistinguishable throughout the
noise susceptible circuits and the noise susceptible circuits operate with immunity to the
noise.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A noise-immune circuit comprising:
a distributed electrical conductor;
noise generating components coupled to said distributed electrical
conductor inducing noise onto said distributed electrical conductor;
noise susceptible components coupled to said distributed electrical
conductor; and
coupling means for coupling noise susceptible circuits to said
distributed electrical conductor, said coupling means distributing noise to
said noise susceptible circuits so that said noise is common throughout said
noise susceptible circuits and said noise susceptible circuits operates [sic,
operate] with immunity to said noise.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Nakayama JP 2-284,515 Nov. 21, 1990
Uramoto et al. (Uramoto) JP 3-183,211 Aug. 09, 1991
Appeal No. 1999-1553
Application No. 08/567,379
3
Grob, Basic Electronics, Fifth Edition, page 560, published by McGraw Hill,
Inc., NY (1984).
Additionally, the examiner relies on appellant’s admitted prior art [APA]
depicted in Figures 1 and 2 of the instant application.
Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over APA in view of Uramoto, Nakayama and Grob.
The positions of appellant and the examiner are laid out in the briefs and answer,
respectively.
OPINION
The examiner’s position is that APA discloses the claimed subject matter but for the
claimed coupling means. This is not surprising since appellant’s improvement over the
prior art is the addition of the coupling means to make the noise common throughout the
noise susceptible circuits in order to have these circuits operate with immunity to the noise.
Since the difference between APA Figure 2 and appellant’s invention depicted in
Figure 4 of the instant application is in the coupling means, specifically the gate, drain and
supply capacitors shown in Figure 4, the examiner turns to prior art showing each of these
various capacitors. That is, Nakayama discloses a gate capacitor C2 and the examiner
says it would have been obvious to add a gate capacitor to APA Figure 2 “for
Appeal No. 1999-1553
Application No. 08/567,379
4
the purpose of preventing an input malfunction which may otherwise be caused by a
ground potential fluctuation.” Uramoto discloses a drain capacitor 11b and the examiner
says that it would have been obvious to add a drain capacitor to APA Figure 2 “for the
purpose of suppressing switching noise.” The examiner also contends that it “is
notoriously well known” that supplies often require low pass filtering and so Grob’s Figure
28-9, showing several well known low pass filters, including a supply capacitor C and
impedances L1 and L2, would have led artisans to “add the filter for the purpose of filtering
the supply noise.” See page 4 of the answer.
The examiner’s rejection is, in our view, based on impermissible hindsight gleaned
from appellant’s own disclosure. The examiner is merely picking and choosing various
capacitor connections from various pieces of prior art in order to reconstruct appellant’s
Figure 4 embodiment. However, the instant claims call for the coupling means to couple
noise susceptible circuits to a distributed electrical conductor so that the coupling means
distributes noise to the noise susceptible circuits so that noise is common throughout the
noise susceptible circuits, allowing those circuits to operate with immunity to the noise.
The examiner has pointed to nothing in the applied references which shows the cited
capacitors connected between a noise susceptible circuit and a distributed electrical
conductor carrying noise signals, as claimed.
Appeal No. 1999-1553
Application No. 08/567,379
5
Because of appellant’s connection of the coupling means (capacitors) to the distributed
electrical conductor, noise is actually introduced into the noise susceptible circuits in order
that the noise is “common throughout the noise susceptible circuits” so that the circuits
operate with immunity to the noise. The examiner has pointed to nothing in the applied
references remotely suggesting this claimed limitation.
The examiner’s response is to state that the artisan would have been led by the
teachings of the applied references “to add coupling means (i.e. capacitors) to virtually any
point in any circuit” [answer-page 5]. That is a very general statement of obviousness and
doesn’t begin to answer the question as to why or how the applied references suggest the
explicitly claimed connection of the coupling means to a distributed electrical conductor
carrying noise signals in such a manner that noise is actually introduced into the noise
susceptible circuits in order that the noise is “common throughout the noise susceptible
circuits,” allowing the circuits to operate with immunity to the noise.
Appeal No. 1999-1553
Application No. 08/567,379
6
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PARSHOTAM S. LALL ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
eak/vsh
Appeal No. 1999-1553
Application No. 08/567,379
7
KEVIN G. MIERZWA
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
ONE PARKLANE BOULEVARD
911 EAST PARKLANE TOWERS
DEARBORN, MI 48126