Ex Parte GRAEF et al - Page 2




               Appeal No. 2001-2447                                                                                              
               Application No. 09/085,143                                                                                        


               Appellants, conventional models use a generic wire load model for estimating capacitance and                      
               resistance, which frequently lack sufficient accuracy (specification, pages 4 & 5).  In the                       
               disclosed design of an IC, having several metal layers, a technology-independent description of a                 
               system is generated which specifies a signal and a selected metal layer for the signal                            
               (specification, page 6).                                                                                          
                      Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced below:                                                    
                              1.     A method for designing an electronic circuit to be implemented on an                        
                      integrated circuit die which includes plural metal layers, the method comprising:                          
                                     a generating step of generating a technology-independent description of a                   
                      system, the technology-independent description specifying a signal and a selected metal                    
                      layer for the signal.                                                                                      
                      The Examiner relies on the following reference in rejecting the claims:                                    
                      Rostoker et al (Rostoker)      5,623,418             Apr. 22, 1997                                         
                      Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Rostoker.1                      
                      We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 13, mailed March 13, 2001) for the                              
               Examiner’s reasoning, and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 12, filed December 18, 2000) and the                     
               reply brief (Paper No. 14, filed May 14, 2001) for Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.                            


                      1  In the answer, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1-30 as being anticipated by Luk et al. (U.S. 
               Patent No. 5,883,814) or Rostoker et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,808,330), the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-
               30 as being anticipated by Huang (U.S. Patent No. 5,568,395), the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 7-30 as  
               being anticipated by Rostoker et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,623,418), and the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-30
               over De Camp et al. (U.S.) Patent No. 5,761,080) or Folta et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,831,870) in view of taking of 
               official notice, as stated in the final rejection (Paper No. 7, mailed March 13, 2000), have been withdrawn by the
               Examiner.                                                                                                         
                                                               2                                                                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007