Appeal No. 95-3779 Application No. 08/191,063 look alike but are not discernible by the reverse engineer. Thus, the invention, as claimed, has clear support in the instant disclosure. We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 15 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. ' 112, first paragraph. Turning now to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. ' 103, we also will not sustain these rejections. The examiner relies on Figures 5 and 6 of Koeppe and on Figures 4 and 8 of Kuwana and contends that the two figures, representative of logic circuits, in each reference show layouts of different types of logic circuits which “look alike” along with dopant implant interconnections which are obviously not discernible by reverse engineering. Appellants do not deny, and, in fact, with respect to Koeppe, admit [at page 5 of the principal brief], that the principal references employ implanted interconnects that would not be discernible to a reverse engineer. However, independent claims 1 and 7 also require, with respect to claim 1, that the logic circuits have “layouts which make said two logic circuits look alike to a reverse engineer” and, with respect to claim 7, that the logic gate have “a layout which makes it look like another kind of logic gate.” Notwithstanding any position of the examiner to the contrary, we simply do not find the circuit layouts in Figures 5 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007