Appeal 2007-2701
Application 10/079,811
More particularly, we agree with Appellants that Hollander does not
teach or fairly suggest modeling software per se. Instead, we find Hollander
teaches creating a cyclic-accurate model of the hardware on which the
external software program runs (col. 10, ll. 24-27). We acknowledge that
Hollander’s test generation facilities may provide direct inputs to the DUT,
as well as inputs to external software (col. 10, ll. 59-61). However, we find
that providing inputs to external software for debugging and comparison
purposes (col. 11, ll. 2-5) is not the same as modeling operation of the
software component using a software simulator, such that interaction is
modeled between the modeled operation of the hardware component and the
modeled operation of the software component, as required by the language
of each independent claim (claims 1, 15, and 16).
In particular, we find nothing in the record to support the Examiner’s
contention that Hollander’s “external software” is not actual code (as alleged
by the Appellants), but is instead the modeled embedded logic of the DUT
(see Answer 9). Indeed, Hollander expressly discloses an embodiment
where the external software is “a driver package [that] can interact with the
DUT on one side, as directed by calls to the driver package[’]s application
programming interface (API) on another side.” (col. 12, ll. 11-15). After
carefully reviewing the secondary Platt, Campbell, and Harmon references,
we find nothing in these references that remedies the deficiencies of
Hollander.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we agree with Appellants that
the Examiner has failed to meet the burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. Accordingly, we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013