## 5 Conclusions  
This paper proposes a novel MDCRP structure filter. This uses only a three-layer PCB and can easily be embedded into PCB designs. It has good CM noise rejection performance at high frequencies while maintaining signal integrity. Additionally, it can support a transmission rate of up to 20 Gb/s, and the eye diagram is a good performance in the measured. The MDCRP structure filter can support HDMI 2.0, PCI Express 4.0, USB 3.2, and SATA Express, meaning that it meets the design needs of current computer and server products.  
Conceptualization, C.-K.Y., D.-B.L. and H.-P.L.; methodology, C.-K.Y. and D.-B.L.; software, C.-K.Y.; validation, C.-K.Y.; formal analysis, C.-K.Y.; investigation, C.-K.Y.; resources, D.-B.L. and H.-P.L.; data curation, C.-K.Y.; writing--original draft preparation, C.-K.Y.; writing--review and editing, C.-K.Y.; visualization, C.-K.Y.; supervision, D.-B.L.; project administra  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Structure** & **Rejection** & **Center** & **Fractional** & **Frictional** & **Filter Size** & **PCB Layers** & **Year** \\ \hline
[7] &
\begin{tabular}{c} 1.52–4.07 GHz \\ (\(-20\) dB) \\ \end{tabular} & 2.795 GHz & 91.2\% & 3.5 & 0.43 \(\lambda_{\text{g}}\times 0.15\,\lambda_{\text{g}}\) & 2 & 2015 \\ \hline
[8] &
\begin{tabular}{c} 3.7–10.8 GHz \\ (\(-10\) dB) \\ \end{tabular} & 7.25 GHz & 97.9\% & 4.4 & 0.3 \(\lambda_{\text{g}}\times 0.3\,\lambda_{\text{g}}\) & 2 & 2016 \\ \hline
[9] &
\begin{tabular}{c} 2.9–8.1 GHz \\ (\(-15\) dB) \\ \end{tabular} & 5.5 GHz & 94.5\% & 3.27 & 0.36 \(\lambda_{\text{g}}\times 0.24\,\lambda_{\text{g}}\) & 2 & 2019 \\ \hline
[10] &
\begin{tabular}{c} 2.75–4.6 GHz \\ (\(-12.25\) dB) \\ \end{tabular} & 3.67 GHz & 50.3\% & 3.66 & 0.28 \(\lambda_{\text{g}}\times 0.18\,\lambda_{\text{g}}\) & 2 & 2020 \\ \hline
[11] &
\begin{tabular}{c} 3.8–7.1 GHz \\ (\(-10\) dB) \\ \end{tabular} & 5.45 GHz & 60.6\% & — & 0.16 \(\lambda_{\text{g}}\times 0.26\,\lambda_{\text{g}}\) & 4 & 2010 \\ \hline
[12] &
\begin{tabular}{c} 1.65–5.2 GHz \\ (\(-10\) dB) \\ \end{tabular} & 3.425 GHz & 103.6\% & 4.5 & 0.11 \(\lambda_{\text{g}}\times 0.11\,\lambda_{\text{g}}\) & 4 & 2012 \\ \hline
[13] &
\begin{tabular}{c} 3.53–10.1 GHz \\ (\(-10\) dB) \\ \end{tabular} & 6.815 GHz & 96.4\% & 4.4 & — & 3 & 2014 \\ \hline
[14] &
\begin{tabular}{c} 3.4–13.41 GHz \\ (\(-10\) dB) \\ \end{tabular} & 8.405 GHz & 119.1\% & 4.4 & 0.25 \(\lambda_{\text{g}}\times 0.25\,\lambda_{\text{g}}\) & 5 & 2017 \\ \hline
[15] &
\begin{tabular}{c} 1.57–7.87 GHz \\ (\(-10\) dB) \\ \end{tabular} & 4.72 GHz & 133.5\% & 4.4 & — & 4 & 2019 \\ \hline
[16] &
\begin{tabular}{c} 5.3–10.4 GHz \\ (\(-10\) dB) \\ \end{tabular} & 7.85 GHz & 65.0\% & 4.4 & 2.74 \(\lambda_{\text{g}}\times 0.55\,\lambda_{\text{g}}\) & 3 & 2016 \\ \hline
[17] & \
\begin{tabular}{c} 3.6–17.03 GHz \\ (\(-9.29\) dB) \\ \end{tabular} & 10.35 GHz & 129.1\% & 3.09 & 0.60 \(\lambda_{\text{g}}\times 0.60\,\lambda_{\text{g}}\) & 3 & 2023 \\ \hline Proposed filter &
\begin{tabular}{c} 5.09–20.62 GHz \\ (\(-10\) dB) \\ \end{tabular} & 12.85 GHz & 120.8\% & 3.09 & 0.75 \(\lambda_{\text{g}}\times 0.75\,\lambda_{\text{g}}\) & 3 & 2023 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Comparison of the performance of different CM noise suppression filters.  
tion, D.-B.L. and H.-P.L.; funding acquisition, D.-B.L. and H.-P.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This work was supported by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.  
Not applicable.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest.