Ex Parte Nash

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 1, 2007

10745124 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 1, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte TIMOTHY J. NASH
_____________

Appeal 2007-1293
Application 10/745,124
Technology Center 2800
______________

Decided: June 1, 2007
_______________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, JOSEPH L. DIXON, and ROBERT E. NAPPI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Final Rejection of
claims 1 through 11. For the reasons stated infra, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims.

Appeal 2007-1293
Application 10/745,124

INVENTION

The invention is directed to a circuit to mask single event transients in a
comparator. The circuit includes an R-C low pass filter in series with a Schmitt-
trigger. The circuit is connected to the output of a comparator. See page 2 of
Appellant’s Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and
reproduced below:
1. A circuit comprising:
a comparator having two inputs and a comparator output;
an RC delay circuit coupled to the comparator output;
a feedback resistor coupled between the comparator output and one of
the inputs; and
a logic device coupled to an output of the RC delay circuit to provide
a logic device output having clean edges, wherein the RC delay circuit has
an RC time constant sufficient to prevent single event transients from
adversely affecting the logic device output.

REFERENCES

The references relied upon by the Examiner are:

Nishibe US 5,592,112 Jan. 7, 1997
Yanagihara1 JP 410022783 A Jan. 23, 1998
Lieder US 2003/0043998 A1 Mar. 6, 2003
(filed Nov. 28, 2001)
Konopka US 6,727,662 B2 Apr. 27, 2004
(filed Sep. 28, 2002)

1 The Examiner and Appellant refer to this reference as Yanagihara.
2

Appeal 2007-1293
Application 10/745,124

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1 through 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by Konopka. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on page 3 of the Answer.
Claims 1 through 3, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Lieder. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on page 4 of the
Answer.
Claims 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lieder in view of Nishibe. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth
on pages 4 and 5 of the Answer.
Claims 6 through 8, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lieder in view of Yanagihara. The Examiner’s rejection is set
forth on page 5 of the Answer.
Claims 6 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Konopka in view of Yanagihara. The Examiner’s rejection is set
forth on pages 5 and 6 of the Answer.
Throughout the opinion we make reference to the Brief and Reply Brief
(filed March 20, 2006, and August 8, 2006, respectively), and the Answer (mailed
June 8, 2006) for the respective details thereof.

2 We note that the final Office action included a rejection of claims 9 and 10 as
anticipated by Konopka. This rejection was not repeated in the Examiner’s
Answer. Accordingly, we consider the rejection to be withdrawn.
3

Appeal 2007-1293
Application 10/745,124

ISSUE
RELATED TO ANTICIPATION BASED UPON KONOPKA

Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3 as
anticipated by Konopka is in error. Appellant states that claim 1 calls for a
feedback resistor and argues that Konopka does not teach a feedback resistor.3
Appellant argues the resistor the Examiner calls a feedback resistor is not a
feedback resistor but a pull up resistor. (Br. 9.)
The Examiner contends that the rejection of claims 1 through 3 as
anticipated by Konopka is proper. The Examiner finds that Konopka’s resistor,
item 628, is a feedback resistor. (Answer 3.) Further, the Examiner states
“[a]lthought the resistor (628) may function as a pull-up resistor; it clearly can be
described as a feedback resistor since it connects the output (626) to the input
(622) of the comparator.” (Answer 7.)
Thus, Appellant’s contention presents us with the issue of whether Konopka
teaches a feedback resistor as recited in claim 1.

FINDINGS OF FACT
RELATED TO ANTICIPATION BASED UPON KONOPKA

1. Konopka teaches a system for dimming control using electronic
ballasts. Abstract.

3 Appellant presents additional arguments as to why this rejection is in error.
However, as discussed infra, we find that the issue concerning the feedback
resistor is dispositive. Therefore, we do not address the other issues for the sake of
brevity.
4

Appeal 2007-1293
Application 10/745,124

2. The dimming control includes a dimming signal detector which
includes a zero crossing detector. The output of the zero crossing detector is
input to a Schmitt-trigger. See Figure 1.
3. The circuit of the zero crossing detector is shown in Figure 4. This
circuit includes two comparators, items 620 and 650.
4. The inverting input to each of these comparators receives a one volt
reference voltage, set by VCC and voltage divider established by two
resistors (616, 618 and 646, 648). Note, voltage divider of resistors 616 and
618 can be used to provide reference voltage to both comparators. (Col. 7,
ll. 11-20.)
5. The output of each of these comparators is connected by a resistor,
item 628 and 658, to VCC (a voltage source).
6. The resistor 628 and 658 are described as “pull-up” resistors, for
biasing the outputs of the comparators. (Col. 7, ll. 20-22.)
7. The output of the comparators is also connected to an RC filter,
resistors 630, 660 and capacitors 632, 662.
8. These RC filters filter the square wave output from the comparators to
provide a voltage (i.e. they low pass filter the output of the comparators).
(Col. 7, ll. 24-27, 45-56.)

ANALYSIS
RELATED TO ANTICIPATION BASED UPON KONOPKA

Claim 1 recites a “feedback resistor coupled between the comparator output
and one of the inputs.” One of skill in the art would recognize that a feedback path
is a path that provides a signal representative of the output to an input. We do not
find that Konopka teaches this feature.
5

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

Appeal 2007-1293
Application 10/745,124

The Examiner contends that the rejections proper. The Examiner states that:
-Firstly, none of the rejected claims recites any magnitude or range of
duration for single event transients. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments based
on the orders of duration are moot.

Answer 6.

Initially, we note that Appellant’s Brief groups claims 1 through 3, 9, and 10
together. Thus, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we group claims 1
through 3, 9, and 10 together and will treat independent claim 1 as the
representative claim of the group. Thus, Appellant’s contentions present us with
the issue of whether Lieder 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 1.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Office personnel must rely on Appellant’s disclosure to properly determine
the meaning of the terms used in the claims. Markman v. Westview Instruments,
Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “[I]nterpreting
what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to be confused with adding an
extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.’” In re
Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1205, (Fed.
Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) (citing Intervet Am., Inc. v. Kee-Vet Labs., Inc.,
887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Fed.Cir.1989)).

7

Appeal 2007-1293
Application 10/745,124

FINDINGS OF FACT
RELATED TO ANTICIPATION BASED UPON LIEDER
9. Lieder teaches a telephone interface circuit with a polarity detector.
(Abstract.)
10. Lieder’s circuit includes three main elements, identified as three
stages ending at nodes A, B, and output respectively. (Paras. 0015-0020.)
11. The first stage includes a comparator, item 110, which has a feedback
resistor, item 103, connected to output, node A, to the inverting input of the
comparator. (Fig. 1.)
12. The output of the comparator, is the output of the first stage, and is
input to the second stage of the circuit.
13. The second stage is an RC filter consisting of series resistor, item 106,
and capacitor (to ground), item 130. (Para. 0016.)
14. The second stage RC filter is a low pass filter. (Para. 0016.)
15. Lieder specifically identifies that a low pass filter is a filter wherein
the values of the capacitor and resistor are “selected such that all signals
detected at or above a minimum frequency will be filtered out.”
16. The output of the RC filter is input to the third stage which comprises
a Schmitt trigger. (Para. 0017.)

ANALYSIS
RELATED TO ANTICIPATION BASED UPON LIEDER

Independent claim 1 recites “an RC delay circuit coupled to the comparator
output … wherein the RC delay circuit has an RC time constant sufficient to
prevent single event transients from adversely affecting the logic device output.”
8

Appeal 2007-1293
Application 10/745,124

Appellant’s originally filed Specification discusses “single event transients” being
caused by solar flares, galactic cosmic radiation, the Van Allen radiation belts or
man made radiation events. (Specification Para. 0003.) Further, Appellant’s
Specification describes these events as being manifested as a voltage spike of very
short duration. (Specification Para. 0010 - 0011.) It is clear from Appellant’s
Specification, arguments and the Examiner’s actions that these spikes are high
frequency noise. Appellant’s Specification explains that to filter out this noise an
RC filter, series resistor R1 and capacitor to ground C1, with a time constant of
approximately 3.4 us [sic, μs] is selected. While we will rely upon Appellant’s
Specification to interpret the claims, we will not read limitations from the
Specification into the claims. Thus, we do not interpret independent claim 1 as
being limited to a circuit that has a time constant of 3.4 μs, but rather read the
claim as broad as would be reasonable, and may encompass 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 1 does not define the frequency
break point below which a signal passes and above which a signal is blocked.
Rather, claim 1 only recites a type of frequency blocked without indicating what is
passed.
Turning to Lieder, as discussed in our findings of fact, Lieder includes an
RC circuit between a comparator circuit and a Schmitt trigger.4 Facts 13 and 16.
Lieder teaches that the RC circuit is a low pass filter which blocks high frequency
signals. Fact 15. As recognized by Appellant, the single transient events are of

4 We note that the RC circuit of Lieder contains the same elements, including series
resistor and capacitor to ground, albeit of different values, as Appellant’s RC
circuit. Thus, while not argued, we consider the structure to meet the means-plus-
function language of claim 9.
9

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

Appeal 2007-1293
Application 10/745,124

time constant sufficient to prevent single event transients from adversely impacting
the logic device output. Appellant reasons that neither Lieder 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. 17.)
The Examiner contends that the rejection of claims 6 through 8 and 11 is
proper. The Examiner’s statement discussed above with respect to claim 1 is
applied to this rejection of claims 6 through 8 and 11.
Thus, similar to claim 1, Appellant’s contentions present us with the issue of
whether Lieder 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, 8, and 11.

ANALYSIS
RELATED TO OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
BASED UPON LIEDER

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
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 with respect to claim 1. As discussed above in our analysis
of the anticipation rejection of claim 1, we find that Lieder anticipates this
limitation. As Appellant has not contented the rejection is improper for any other
reason, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 through 8 and 11 for the
reasons discussed supra with respect to the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claim 1.
11

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

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

Appeal 2007-1293
Application 10/745,124

CONCLUSION
In summary we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through
3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Konopka. However we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Lieder, and the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4 through 8, and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).

AFFIRMED

pgc

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
101 COLUMBIA ROAD
P O BOX 2245
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07962-2245

14