Appeal No. 97-2053
Application 08/229,624
it obvious to compute cost factors related to cell placement
in view of the teachings of Noble.
Claim 15 is similar to claims 1 and 17 except that the
cost factor is recited as a “congestion” in the placement of
cells on an integrated circuit chip and the claim recites
“computing said congestion.” For the same reasons discussed
above, the computation of claim 15 must be in relation to a
placement of cells on an integrated circuit chip. Since Noble
has nothing to do with such placement, the invention of claim
15 would not have been obvious in view of the teachings of
Noble.
In summary, the examiner’s position that the claims on
appeal do not require the placement of cells on an integrated
circuit chip is in error. The definition of cost factor or
congestion in the appealed claims requires that the cost
factor or congestion be related to the placement of cells on
an integrated circuit chip. For reasons discussed above,
Noble does not teach or suggest such a computation of cost or
congestion. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 15 and 17 based on the teachings of Noble.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007