Low-power biasing networks for superconducting integrated circuits

Abstract

A superconducting integrated circuit, comprising a plurality of superconducting circuit elements, each having a variation in operating voltage over time; a common power line; and a plurality of bias circuits, each connected to the common power line, and to a respective superconducting circuit element, wherein each respective bias circuit is superconducting during at least one time portion of the operation of a respective superconducting circuit element, and is configured to supply the variation in operating voltage over time to the respective superconducting circuit element.

Claims

1. A biasing network for a biasing circuit elements in a plurality of parallel circuit branches, comprising: a current distribution network; a bias element for each respective parallel circuit branch, comprising at least one Josephson junction having a critical current I.sub.C connected in series with at least one inductor, effective for biasing the respective circuit branch with a bias current I.sub.n and for critically damping at least one Josephson junction within the respective circuit branch; each bias element communicating a respective bias current I.sub.n from the current distribution network to respective circuit elements in each respective circuit branch, each bias element having a respective inductance L.sub.n such that the respective bias current I.sub.n of each respective circuit branch is inversely proportional to L.sub.n, where L.sub.nI.sub.n is greater than Φ.sub.0=h/2e=2 mA-pH.

2. The biasing network according to claim 1, wherein at least one first circuit element in a first respective circuit branch has a different respective operating voltage than at least one second circuit element in a second respective circuit branch.

3. The biasing network according to claim 1, wherein at least one first circuit element in a first respective circuit branch has a different respective bias current I.sub.C than at least one second circuit element in a second respective circuit branch.

4. The biasing network according to claim 1, wherein at least one first circuit element in a first respective circuit branch comprises of a Josephson junction connected to a ground.

5. The biasing network according to claim 1, wherein at least one first circuit element in a first respective circuit branch comprises of a Josephson transmission line (JTL).

6. The biasing network according to claim 1, wherein at least one first circuit element in a first respective circuit branch comprises of a superconducting flip flop.

7. The biasing network according to claim 1, wherein at least one first circuit element in a first respective circuit branch comprises of a superconducting toggle flip-flop (TFF).

8. The biasing network according to claim 1, wherein at least one first circuit element in a first respective circuit branch comprises of a single flux quantum logic element.

9. The biasing network according to claim 1, wherein the at least one inductor for each respective circuit branch is a superconducting inductor.

10. The biasing network according to claim 1, wherein the bias element for each respective circuit branch functions as a current limiter.

11. The biasing network according to claim 1, at least one circuit branch comprises a Josephson junction circuit substantially without any shunt resistor in parallel with a Josephson junction.

12. The biasing network according to claim 1, wherein a first bias element exhibits a maximum average DC voltage V.sub.max, a second bias element that exhibits a maximum average DC voltage V.sub.n<V.sub.max, wherein a respective ratio of an average bias current Ī.sub.C for the first bias element and the second bias element is not proportional to a respective ratio of V.sub.max to V.sub.n.

13. The biasing network according to claim 12, wherein the second bias element exhibits an average voltage drop of V.sub.max−V.sub.n.

14. A method of biasing circuit elements in a plurality of parallel circuit branches, comprising: distributing a current through a current distribution network to the plurality of parallel circuit branches; providing a respective bias element for each respective circuit branch, each respective bias element comprising at least one Josephson junction having a critical current I.sub.C connected in series with at least one inductor, effective for biasing the respective circuit branch with a bias current I.sub.n and for critically damping at least one Josephson junction within the respective circuit branch; communicating the respective bias current I.sub.n from the current distribution network, through each respective bias element, to respective circuit elements in each respective circuit branch, such that each respective circuit branch is supplied with a respective bias current I.sub.n and at least one Josephson junction within the respective circuit branch is critically damped by the respective bias element substantially without a shunt damping impedance within the respective circuit branch for damping the at least one Josephson junction within that respective branch.

15. The method according to claim 14, wherein each bias element has a respective inductance L.sub.n such that the respective bias current I.sub.n of each respective circuit branch is inversely proportional to L.sub.n, where L.sub.nI.sub.n is greater than Φ.sub.0=h/2e=2 mA-pH.

16. The method according to claim 15, wherein a plurality of respective circuit branches comprise single flux quantum logic circuits, further comprising communicating an output of the single flux quantum logic circuits.

17. The method according to claim 14, wherein at least one first circuit element in a first respective circuit branch has a different respective average operating voltage and average operating current than at least one second circuit element in a second respective circuit branch, wherein the respective bias element for each respective branch operates as a current limiter.

18. The method according to claim 14, wherein the at least one inductor for each respective circuit branch is a superconducting inductor.

19. The method according to claim 14, further comprising turning on and off at least one circuit branch such that it selectively operates when turned on.

20. A superconducting integrated circuit, comprising: a plurality of superconducting circuit elements, each being biased below a critical current for a respective superconducting Josephson junction logic element within the respective circuit element; and a biasing network comprising a plurality of bias elements in parallel, configured to dynamically critically bias the plurality of superconducting circuit elements, while substantially isolating a dynamic bias state for each of the plurality of superconducting circuit elements from others of the plurality of superconducting circuit elements, each bias element being configured to receive a bias current from a current source and pass the bias current through at least one inductor and at least one bias Josephson junction, the bias current for each respective bias element being dependent on a critical current of the respective bias Josephson junction, wherein the plurality of superconducting circuit elements are configured to operate in a stable operating regime over a range of data sequences input to the superconducting integrated circuit and fed to the plurality of superconducting circuit elements.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

(1) FIG. 1 shows a resistive bias current distribution network for RSFQ circuits of the prior art.

(2) FIG. 2 shows a DC V(I) relation for a resistively shunted Josephson junction of the prior art.

(3) FIG. 3 shows a circuit schematic explicitly showing both bias resistors R.sub.b and shunt resistors R.sub.n of the prior art.

(4) FIG. 4 shows the Power-Delay plot for superconductor and semiconductor device families.

(5) FIG. 5 shows a schematic of a section of a dual function resistive bias circuit.

(6) FIG. 6A shows a layout of a section of a conventional resistive bias of the prior art.

(7) FIG. 6B shows a dual-function resistive bias corresponding to the circuit of FIG. 6A.

(8) FIG. 7 shows a pure inductive bias current distribution network, for a circuit where the average voltages at each current injection node are identical.

(9) FIG. 8 shows a junction-inductive bias current distribution network for non-identical device sub-circuit voltages, with series Josephson junctions to limit current.

(10) FIG. 9A shows how the bias design for a sample RSFQ circuit (left) may be modified for pure inductive bias using the eSFQ approach on the right.

(11) FIG. 9B shows how the eSFQ circuit of FIG. 9A may include an optional bias junction Jb for additional circuit stability.

(12) FIG. 9C shows a standard asynchronous RSFQ Josephson transmission line (JTL) of the prior art.

(13) FIG. 9D shows a clocked JTL that is compatible with eSFQ design.

(14) FIG. 10 shows a design of a voltage regulator circuit locked to a clock for junction-inductor biasing of an RSFQ circuit based on the ERSFQ approach.

(15) FIG. 11 shows an integrated circuit layout for a 4-bit binary RSFQ counter with a biasing network based on the ERSFQ junction-inductor bias approach.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

(16) The several preferred embodiments are hereby described in greater detail, with reference to the figures.

(17) FIG. 1 of the prior art shows a current source providing bias current to two Josephson transmission lines (JTLs), one on the top and the other on the bottom. A JTL comprises a set of parallel Josephson junctions (each symbolized by ‘X’) connected by small inductors, and functions as an active transmission line for SFQ pulses.

(18) A set of parallel resistors R.sub.b is used to bias the set of JTLs at a constant current less than the critical current I.sub.c of the junctions, so that there is no voltage or static power in the junctions. When an SFQ voltage pulse is introduced at one end of the JTL, it causes each junction in turn to exceed I.sub.c in a transient fashion, generating an SFQ pulse which propagates to the next junction.

(19) Each Josephson junction in FIG. 1 is actually a damped Josephson junction. While there are technologies whereby sufficient damping can be provided by the junction itself, in most cases additional damping is needed (to achieve “critical damping”) and is provided by a resistor that shunts the intrinsic junction. Indeed, separate control over damping may be advantageous. The DC current-voltage characteristic of such a shunted junction is shown in FIG. 2, and has a critical current I.sub.c, below which the voltage is zero. The shunting resistor R.sub.n for each junction is shown explicitly in FIG. 3, which represents two parallel Josephson junctions within a Josephson transmission line, and also shows the bias resistors R.sub.b. In conventional RSFQ design, R.sub.b is typically a factor of ten larger than R.sub.n, in order to maintain constant current while also maintaining appropriate isolation between the various junctions. Note that in FIG. 3 (and FIG. 5), each ‘X’ represents an intrinsic (underdamped) Josephson junction. In contrast, in FIG. 1, as well as in FIGS. 8-10, each ‘X’ represents a shunted (damped) junction.

(20) FIG. 4 shows the comparative power dissipation and gate delay of various advanced electronic technologies of the prior art. In general, all technologies offer a tradeoff between power and speed; faster devices tend to dissipate more power. The line labeled RSFQ shows that these devices are very fast with low power dissipation (compared with semiconductor technologies in the right half of the figure), but most of the power is actually associated with the static bias distribution. The line labeled ‘eSFQ’ represents the ultimate limit of RSFQ, based only on the dynamic switching power of the Josephson junctions. There are several potential applications that may warrant such ultra-low power, including parallel supercomputing, quantum computing, and digital processing for cryogenic sensor arrays.

(21) FIG. 5 shows how FIG. 3 can be modified within the dual-function resistive bias approach, for a biased JTL. Here, each ‘X’ represents an intrinsic unshunted junction. An isolated junction of this type, driven by a constant bias current I, would generate a hysteretic I-V curve quite unlike that for the damped junction as shown in FIG. 2. Further, such an undamped junction triggered by an SFQ pulse would switch into the voltage state and oscillate for many oscillations (corresponding to many SFQ pulses) before eventually damping out. This would be highly undesirable for a digital technology. This is well known in the prior art, and this is why the damping needs to be added. However, according to one embodiment, an appropriate biasing scheme can also provide the requisite damping without the need for a shunt resistor. Here, the biasing resistor R.sub.b is reduced to a value comparable to the shunt resistor R.sub.n of the conventional case. Furthermore, if there are many junctions being biased in parallel, there is an effective resistance to ground from the voltage bias line of R.sub.buf˜R.sub.n/N, where N is the number of parallel branches of the biasing network. So for this large network, the effective resistance to ground shunting each junction is only marginally greater than R.sub.n. Further, using the bias resistor as the damping shunt inevitably leads to some coupling between parallel branches, which would cause possible concern. However, simulations and measurements have shown that for a large number of parallel branches, this coupling does not generate bit errors within the circuit, and can be neglected. A key advantage, of course, is that the static power dissipation is reduced by a factor of about ten relative to the conventional resistive bias approach.

(22) FIG. 6A shows an example of a circuit layout for a section of two JTLs in conventional resistive bias, and FIG. 6B shows an example of a dual-function resistive bias approach. In both cases, there is a central (left-right) voltage bias bus, with bias resistors going to signal lines on the top and bottom. The width of the signal lines gives the scale of the devices, about 2 μm for the circuits here. The resistors are made with a resistive layer having a sheet resistance of 2 ohms/square. For the conventional approach in FIG. 6A on the left, the bias resistors require a meander line of order 10 squares long, while the shunt resistors are of order 1 square. In contrast, for the dual-function resistive bias approach in FIG. 6B on the right, there is only a small bias resistor of order 1 square, and no shunt resistor. Remarkably, both circuits have been simulated and measured to exhibit virtually the same electrical behavior for propagating SFQ pulses, despite the sharp difference in power dissipation.

(23) FIG. 7 shows a block diagram for a simple SFQ circuit, a JTL (comprised of several JTL sections) with pure inductive bias. Here, it is assumed that the Josephson junctions in the JTL are damped by resistive shunts as in the conventional resistive approach, and the signal input to the JTL is a clock signal of a periodic sequence of SFQ pulses at the clock rate f.sub.c. The average DC voltage on each junction in the JTL is then V=Φ.sub.0f.sub.c, and that is also the voltage on the bias line, since the inductors do not sustain a DC voltage. In the general case, the bias currents I.sub.n could be different, and so could the inductors L.sub.n. When the power is first turned on, the currents will distribute in inverse proportion to each value L.sub.n, assuming that the effective impedance during turn-on is dominated by these inductors. Note that a Josephson junction below I.sub.c is also effectively a nonlinear inductance having a value of the Josephson inductance
L.sub.J=Φ.sub.0/[2π(I.sub.c.sup.2−I.sup.2).sup.1/2].

(24) So if we ensure that the bias inductors L.sub.n are large compared to Φ.sub.0/I.sub.c, then the initial current distribution should be dominated by the values of L.sub.n. This will also ensure that the bias inductors effectively screen the individual SFQ pulses from coupling between the branches of the bias network.

(25) As for the case shown in FIG. 7, the average voltage at each current insertion point is the same, in this case Φ.sub.0f.sub.c. As stated above, if the average voltages are different, the current will tend to redistribute away from the high-voltage branches to the low-voltage branches very quickly. To take a specific example that illustrates this, note that Φ.sub.0=2 mA-pH, and consider a reasonably large value L.sub.n˜100 pH. Then, if one had a voltage difference as small as 1 μV, one obtains dI/dt˜V/L.sub.n˜10.sup.4 A/s. For typical bias currents ˜1 mA, this would completely deplete this branch in 100 ns. This is generally unacceptable, and emphasizes that the insertion voltages should generally be exactly the same in all branches for this pure inductive biasing approach. This will be the case in clock signal distribution lines, or in clocked circuits that are guaranteed to switch once each clock period. An example of such a circuit is described with regard to FIG. 9A below. In these cases, not only is the time-averaged voltage the same, but the magnetic flux (and the corresponding superconducting phase difference) in the bias loops should also be the essentially constant, with no tendencies to redistribute current from one branch to the next. This makes for a very stable configuration. Further, this pure inductive bias approach completely eliminates the static power dissipation, leaving only the dynamic power intrinsically associated with the SFQ pulses.

(26) FIG. 8 illustrates an example whereby the voltages are not the same at all nodes, and shows how the junction-inductive bias approach (also known in this context as ERSFQ) can handle this successfully. In this example, the signal input is an SFQ pulse sequence at a clock frequency f.sub.c, the same as for FIG. 7. However, the output of the first JTL stage goes to a toggle-flip-flop (TFF) which functions as a binary frequency divider, sending to its output only every other alternate input pulse. In this way, the output pulse stream (which is propagated by the output JTL) is at a data rate of f.sub.c/2. Therefore, the average insertion voltage for the input JTL is Φ.sub.0f.sub.c, while that for the output JTL is Φ.sub.0f.sub.c/2. Clearly, this would be incompatible with the pure inductive bias of FIG. 7. However, we select the critical current I.sub.c of each junction J.sub.n to be equal to the bias current I.sub.n in that branch. In that case, while the bias current will start to redistribute from branch 1 toward branch 3 (with the reduced voltage), junction J.sub.3 acts as a current limiter, quickly establishing an average voltage Φ.sub.0f.sub.c/2 which then maintains a bias voltage of Φ.sub.0f.sub.c on all branches of the networks. While this junction-inductive ERSFQ biasing scheme does permit a small current redistribution if sub-circuits have data-dependent voltages, this should be negligible for a properly designed system. Furthermore, although the bias junction does dissipate some power, this extra power is much less than that of the bias resistor that is replaced. The total power dissipation would be I.sub.bΦ.sub.0f.sub.c, of which typically less than half would come from the bias junctions. This is still at least a factor of 10 reduction from the conventional resistive bias.

(27) Note that the junction J.sub.1 is not necessary, since it is in the branch with the maximum voltage V.sub.max, which will see its current decrease (very slightly) rather than increase. So in steady state, there should ideally be no voltage across J.sub.1, and a pure inductive bias could be used in this branch. On the other hand, there may be some advantages to including this junction. For example, if there are two or more branches corresponding to V.sub.max, then this may form a superconducting loop that could trap magnetic flux, leading to a large circulating current. Such trapped flux can cause problems in RSFQ circuits, by coupling stray magnetic flux to another part of the circuit. On the other hand, if there is a junction in the loop, this trapped flux would be more likely to escape. Furthermore, during transients such as power-up and power-down, junction J.sub.1 may be activated, so that its presence may enhance the stability of the system.

(28) FIG. 8 shows the inductors in contact with the voltage bias bus, and the junctions in contact with the RSFQ circuit, but this is not necessary. These could equally well be inverted in any given branch. Further, the inductor could be split in two, with the junction in between. In addition, one could use more than one Josephson junction in series for a given branch. This would tend to increase the voltage-compliance of this current regulator, assuming that I.sub.c for the junctions is the same. In principle, one could even use the nonlinear Josephson inductance of an array of junctions to obtain a sufficiently large series inductance, without the need for a separate linear inductor.

(29) FIG. 9A presents the schematic of a standard RSFQ cell that is slightly modified to be compatible with pure inductive bias. This circuit is the data-flip-flop or DFF, which permits a data bit to be stored in the cell until it is released by the output trigger, which is usually a clock signal. In the conventional design on the left, the bias current injects current just above junction J.sub.2, so the average voltage is data-dependent. The trigger (clock) line sends an SFQ pulse to the series combination of junctions J.sub.3 and J.sub.4, such that in every case, one or the other (but not both) junctions switch. These two junctions form what is known as a “decision-making pair”, which is a common configuration in RSFQ logic. Therefore, for a clock input at a rate f.sub.c, the voltage at the clock input is Φ.sub.0f.sub.c. In the slightly modified DFF design on the right, the current bias is inserted instead into the clock line. This permits this circuit to be biased with the same network that biases a clock distribution line, for example, which also has an average voltage of Φ.sub.0f.sub.c. This change in bias point is not entirely trivial; the detailed parameters of the circuit would need to be reoptimized for this change, with possible changes in critical currents and inductor values, in order to maintain a large margin of operation. Similar changes should be possible for most RSFQ logic gates. In this way, the bias voltage at all circuit injection points will have exactly the same average voltage of Φ.sub.0f.sub.c, and furthermore the voltage pulses in adjacent injection points are synchronized by the same clock and hence are essentially identical. So the instantaneous voltages in each branch are the same, thus there will be no tendency for currents to redistribute from one branch to another. This will enable the bias inductors L.sub.b in the bias lines to be reduced from the large values (L.sub.b much larger than Φ.sub.0/I.sub.b) required for stability with asynchronous system operation. Given that these large bias inductors may take up a large area in the integrated circuit layout, the reduction in bias inductor values represents a significant advantage of the eSFQ approach.

(30) While a Josephson junction in series with the bias inductor is not strictly necessary in the eSFQ design in the right of FIG. 9A, a junction J.sub.b may be added as shown in FIG. 9B. Since the instantaneous bias voltages in neighboring bias network branches are essentially the same, there will be no current redistribution in steady-state operation, and hence the bias junctions will remain in their zero-voltage state with current I just below the critical current I.sub.c=I.sub.b. On the other hand, in transient operation such as power-up or power-down, the bias junctions are available to permit quick system adjustment toward stable operation. Therefore, bias junctions may generally be used in eSFQ designs, as well.

(31) Other RSFQ circuits which could be modified for compatibility with eSFQ biasing include data distribution lines. This would include reducing the use of asynchronous JTLs, splitters and confluence buffers, and instead using passive transmission lines with clocked transmitter and receiver circuits. In this way, it is likely that an entire RSFQ cell library could be adapted to eSFQ biasing. One alternative to the standard asynchronous JTL (FIG. 9C) is a eSFQ clocked JTL shown in FIG. 9D. Here the single row of junctions on the left is replaced with a dual row of clocked decision-making junction pairs, configured so that at every clock cycle, either the top junction or the bottom junction is triggered. In this way, the instantaneous voltage at the current insertion point is synchronized to that of a clock distribution line.

(32) Alternatively, one could use the ERSFQ approach, whereby such cell modifications are unnecessary. In this case, one simply replaces each conventional bias resistor with a series combination of an inductor and a Josephson junction with I.sub.c=I.sub.n. A further variant that combines aspects of both methods is shown in FIG. 10. Here one has an RSFQ circuit which is biased with the junction-inductive approach with insertion voltages less than or equal to Φ.sub.0f.sub.c. In addition, the top of FIG. 10 shows a JTL fed by a sequence of clock pulses at f.sub.c, corresponding to a voltage of Φ.sub.0f.sub.c, with a pure inductive bias. In effect, this JTL provides a voltage regulation circuit, which can supply current to the RSFQ circuit on the bottom to maintain the fixed voltage. This voltage regulator can comprise the actual clock distribution network or other circuits at this voltage, or a special circuit segment dedicated to this purpose. In this way, one has both current stabilization (provided by the series junctions) and voltage stabilization (provided by the clock and the inductive-biased JTL).

(33) FIG. 11 is a sample integrated-circuit layout of a circuit similar to that shown in FIG. 10. This comprises an inductive-biased JTL on the top right, with a clock input at f.sub.c, providing the voltage stabilization for a 4-bit RSFQ binary counter that is comprised of four TFFs with JTL stages between them. In the same way as shown in FIG. 8, each TFF stage reduces the clock frequency by a factor of two, for a total factor of 16 reduction in data rate. Therefore, the average voltage at the output of each TFF drops by a factor of two from its input. The current bias lines for the binary counter include a Josephson junction in series with the inductors, as indicated in FIG. 10. These junctions permit the total bias voltage to be Φ.sub.0f.sub.c, even for the branches that correspond to SFQ pulses at reduced rates.

(34) The bias inductors in FIG. 11 are the small boxes, each with two smaller boxes inside. Each inductor actually consists of two inductors in series, where each inductor has three turns and a hole in the ground plane to increase inductances. One of each inductor pair is wound clockwise, and the other counterclockwise, in an effort to reduce stray magnetic flux that might be coupled to other parts of the circuit. The inductances are estimated to be of order 100 pH.

(35) These preferred embodiments provide examples of the application of the design methods of this invention, and may be combined or modified to achieve the optimum combination of power reduction, bias stability, operating margin, and fabrication yield.

(36) The present invention has been described here by way of example only. Various modification and variations may be made to these exemplary embodiments without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention, which is limited only by the appended claims.

REFERENCES

(37) The following references are each expressly incorporated herein by reference in their entirety: [1] S. Ruth, “Green IT—more than a three percent solution,” IEEE Internet Computing, pp. 80-84, July/August 2009. [2] A. Geist “Paving the roadmap to Exascale,” SciDAC Review, No. 16, 2010. Available: www.scidacreview.org. [3] S. Mukhopadhyay, “Switching energy in CMOS logic: how far are we from physical limit,” 2006. Available: nanohub.org/resources/1250. [4] V. V. Zhirnov, R. K. Cavin, J. A. Hutchby, and G. I. Bourianoff, “Limits to binary Logic Switch Scaling—A Gedanken Model”, Proc. IEEE, vol. 91, pp. 1934-1939, November 2003. [5] K. Likharev and V. Semenov, “RSFQ logic/memory family: A new Josephson-junction technology for sub-terahertz clock-frequency digital systems”, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 1, pp. 3-28, March 1991. [6] W. Chen, A. V. Rylyakov, V. Patel, J. E. Lukens, and K. K. Likharev “Superconductor digital frequency divider operating up to 750 GHz”, Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 73, pp 2817-2819, November 1998. [7] O. Mukhanov, D. Gupta, A. Kadin, and V. Semenov, “Superconductor Analog-to-Digital Converters,” Proc. of the IEEE, vol. 92, pp. 1564-1584, October 2004. [8] O. A. Mukhanov, D. Kirichenko, I. V. Vernik, T. V. Filippov, A. Kirichenko, R. Webber, V. Dotsenko, A. Talalaevskii, J. C. Tang, A. Sahu, P. Shevchenko, R. Miller, S. B. Kaplan, S. Sarwana, and D. Gupta, “Superconductor Digital-RF receiver systems,” IEICE Trans. Electron., vol. E91-C, pp. 306-317, March 2008. [9] A. Fujimaki, M. Tanaka, T. Yamada, Y. Yamanashi, H. Park, N. Yoshikawa, “Bit-serial single flux quantum microprocessor CORE,” IEICE Trans. Electron., vol. E91-C pp. 342-349, March 2008. [10] Y. Yamanashi, T. Kainuma, N. Yoshikawa, I. Kataeva, H. Akaike, A. Fujimaki, M. Tanaka, N. Takagi, S. Nagasawa, M. Hidaka, “100 GHz demonstrations based on the single-flux-quantum cell library for the 10 kA/cm2 Nb fabrication process,” IEICE Trans. Electron., vol. E93-C pp. 440-444, April 2010. [11] A. Rylyakov, “New design of single-bit all-digital RSFQ autocorrelator”, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 7, pp. 2709-2712, June 1997. [12] N. Yoshikawa, Y. Kato, “Reduction of power consumption of RSFQ circuits by inductance-load biasing,” Supercond. Sci. Technol., vol. 12, pp. 918-920, November 1999. [13] Y. Yamanashi, T. Nishigai, N. Yoshikawa, “Study of LR-loading technique for low-power single flux quantum circuits,” IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 17, pp. 150-153, June 2007. [14] A. Rylyakov and K. Likharev, “Pulse jitter and timing errors in RSFQ circuits”, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 9, pp. 3539-3444, June 1999. [15] S. Polonsky, “Delay insensitive RSFQ circuits with zero static power dissipation,” IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 9, pp. 3535-3538, June 1999. [16] A. H. Silver, Q. P. Herr, “A new concept for ultra-low power and ultrahigh clock rate circuits,” IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 11, pp. 333-336, June 2001. [17] S. M. Schwarzbeck, K. Yokoyama, D. Durand, R. Davidheiser, “Operation of SAIL HTS digital circuits near 1 GHz,” IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 5, pp. 3176-3178, June 1995. [18] Q. P. Hen, A. Y. Hen, O. T. Oberg and A. G. Ioannidis, “Ultra-Low-Power Superconductor Logic,” submitted for publication. [19] 0. A. Mukhanov, D. E. Kirichenko, and A. F. Kirichenko, “Low power biasing networks for superconducting integrated circuits,” Patent application 61/250,838, Oct. 12, 2009. [20] K. K. Likharev, O. A. Mukhanov, and V. K. Semenov, “Resistive Single Flux Quantum logic for the Josephson-junction digital technology,” in SQUID′85, Berlin, 1985, pp. 1103-1108. [21] O. A. Mukhanov, V. K. Semenov, and K. K. Likharev, “Ultimate performance of the RSFQ logic circuits,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. MAG-23, pp. 759-762, March 1987. [22] D. E. Kirichenko, A. F. Kirichenko, S. Sarwana, “No static power dissipation biasing of RSFQ circuits,” IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., submitted for publication. [23] HYPRES Design Rules. Available: www.hypres.com. [24] 0. A. Mukhanov, S. V. Polonsky, and V. K. Semenov, “New Elements of the RSFQ Logic Family,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. MAG-27, pp. 2435-2438, March 1991. [25] 0. A. Mukhanov, “RSFQ 1024-bit shift register for acquisition memory,” IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 3, pp. 3102-3113, December 1993. [26] S. V. Polonsky, V. K. Semenov, P. Bunyk, A. F. Kirichenko, A. Kidiyarova-Shevchenko, O. A. Mukhanov, P. Shevchenko, D. Schneider, D. Y. Zinoviev, and K. K. Likharev, “New RSFQ Circuits,” IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 3, pp. 2566-2577, March 1993. [27] C. Bennett, “Logical reversibility of computation,” IBM J. Res. Devel., vol. 17, pp. 525-532, 1973 [28] K. K. Likharev, “Dynamics of some single flux quantum devices,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. MAG-13, pp. 242-244, January 1977. [29] W. Hioe and E. Goto, Quantum Flux Parametron. World Scientific, 1991. [30] K. K. Likharev, S. V. Rylov, V. K. Semenov, “Reversible conveyer computations in arrays of parametric quantrons,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. MAG-21, pp. 947-950, March 1985. [31] S. V. Rylov, V. K. Semenov, K. K. Likharev, “DC powered parametric quantron,” in Proc. ISEC, Tokyo, August 1987, pp. 135-138. [32] V. Semenov, G. Danilov, D. Averin, “Negative-inductance SQUID as the basic element of reversible Josephson-junction circuits,” IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 13, pp. 938-943, June 2003. [33] V. Semenov, G. Danilov, D. Averin, “Classical and quantum operation modes of the reversible Josephson-junction logic circuits,” IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 17, pp. 455-461, June 2007 [34] J. Ren, V. Semenov, Yu. Polyakov, D. Averin, J.-S. Tsai, “Progress toward reversible computing with nSQUID arrays,” IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 19, pp. 961-967, 2009. [35] V. Semenov, J. Ren, Yu. Polyakov, D. Averin, J.-S. Tsai, “Reversible computing with nSQUID arrays,” in Proc. 12th Int. Supercond. Electr. Conf., Fukuoka, 2009, paper SP-P27. [36] A. M. Kadin, R. J. Webber, and D. Gupta, “Current leads and optimized thermal packaging for superconducting systems on multistage cryocoolers”, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 17, pp. 975-978, June 2007. [37] R. J. Webber, J. Delmas, B. H. Moeckly, “Ultra-low heat leak YBCO superconducting leads for cryoelectronic applications”, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 19, pp. 999-1002, June 2009. [38] A. Inamdar, S. Rylov, S. Sarwana D. Gupta, “Superconducting switching amplifiers for high speed digital data links,” IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 19, pp. 999-1002, June 2009. [39] K. D. Choquette, K. L Lear, R. E. Leibenguth, and M. T. Asom, “Polarization Modulation of Cruciform Vertical-Cavity Laser Diodes,” Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 64, pp. 2767-2769, 1994. [40] H. Wei, N. Patil, A. Lin, H.-S. P. Wong, S. Mitra, “Monolithic three dimensional integrated circuits using carbon nanotube FETs and interconnects,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Electron Dev. Meeting (IEDM), Baltimore, 2009, paper 23.5. [41] M. T. Niemier, X. S. Hu, M. Alam, G. Bernstein, W. Porod, M. Putney, J. DeAngelis, “Clocking structures and power analysis for nanomagnet based logic devices”, in Proc. ISLPED '07, Portland, 2007. [42] V. K. Semenov, “Digital to analog conversion based on processing of the SFQ pulses”, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 3, pp. 2637-2640, March 1993 [43] A. F. Kirichenko, V. K. Semenov, Y. K. Kwong, and V. Nandakumar, “4-bit Single Flux Quantum Decoder,” IEEE Trans. on Appl. Supercond., vol. 5, no. 2, 1995, p. 2857. [44] A. Fujimaki, Y. Hogashi, S. Miyajima, T. Kusumoto, “Event-driven dual channel oversampled analog-to-digital converter for a detector system”, Submitted for publication to this issue of IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond