Appeal No. 2006-0167
Application No. 10/186,263
Rejection of claims 11 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Appellant argues on page 6 of the brief:
Chang’s absolute constraints, relative constraints, and mixed constraints
fail to teach, disclose or suggest “the mathematical formulation including
functional description of the integrated circuit, block structure in which a
relationship of logical blocks is expressed, hierarchy in which the logical
blocks are expressed’ (emphasis added), as recited in Claims 11 and 24.
In response the examiner asserts, on page 7 of the answer, that Chang in
column 17 describes a mathematical formulation between the expected value of
the design and design decision constraint. On page 8 of the answer, the
examiner asserts that the absolute block constraints include timing indications
and are mathematically described in formulas discussed in column 17. Further,
the examiner states that column 43 identifies that the blocks are expressed
hieratically. Thus, the examiner concludes that Chang teaches the limitations of
claims 11 and 24.
We disagree with the examiner’s rationale. Claims 11 and 24 include the
limitation of “the mathematical formulation including functional description of the
integrated circuit, block structure in which a relationship of logical blocks is
expressed, hierarchy in which the logical blocks are expressed, timing
implications of logical blocks in terms of timing specification for the integrated
circuit, content of timing indications and structure of timing indications.” Thus,
claims 11 and 24 require the mathematical formulation to include six things,
including the relationship of logical blocks and hierarchy in which the logical
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007