Appeal No. 2005-2512
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,431
Second Ho Decl. para. 2 (emphasis added).20 The same distinction between RailMill
and ChipViewer’s use therewith is observed in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Second Ho
Declaration, which discuss the Arcadia Manual and the RailMill documents,
respectively:
4. . . . [T]o the extent that the [Arcadia Manual] document refers to
RailMill and the use of ChipViewer to display the outputs from RailMill, it
describes our own implementation of the invention.
5. . . . [T]o the extent that those [RailMill] documents describe
RailMill and the use of ChipViewer to display the outputs from RailMill,
they describe an embodiment of our invention, made by us.
Second Ho Decl. paras 4-5. Consequently, we understand the term “RailMill” as used
in this declaration to refer to the power net simulation engine and associated transistor
network simulation engine but not ChipViewer. Furthermore, insofar as ChipViewer is
concerned, we do not understand that testimony to mean that Ho and Tuan invented
ChipViewer per se. Rather, it can reasonably be understood to mean that they used an
existing ChipViewer product (presumably with some modification) to display the voltage
drop and current information in the manner depicted in Figures 14A and 14B,
20 Because a Rule 131 attribution declaration is offered to prove inventorship
(i.e., conception) and derivation of the subject matter relied on in the reference, it is not
necessary to consider the merits of the assertions of a reduction to practice.
28
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007