Appeal No. 1997-1571
Application No. 08/048,123
The Section 103 rejection of claim 15
Claim 15 relates to "[a]n interactive graphic editing
method for designing a semiconductor integrated circuit" with
the step of "selecting an editing pattern object displayed on
a graphic display. . ." (emphasis added). The term "editing
pattern object" recited in claim 15, read in light of the
specification and the preamble, refers, not to any type of
"editing objects," but rather to those "editing objects"
concerning "pattern" operation related to the design of
"semiconductor integrated circuits." The term "design object"
in Wada can be construed as an "editing object," but it does
not read on the term "editing pattern object" recited in claim
15. Stated differently, Wada discloses "designing objects"
for designing piping systems. Wada does not disclose an
"editing pattern object" for the design of semiconductor
integrated circuits as claimed. The secondary reference to
Daniel does not cure these deficiencies. In our opinion, the
examiner's proposed modification amounts to an impermissible
hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention. Without
having the benefit of appellant's teachings, one of ordinary
skill in the art would not have equated the step of selecting
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007