Appeal No. 95-3265
Application 08/047,162
with common design rules (col.1) in the
context of hierarchical pattern
processing and specifically teaches the
concept of defining an area for limiting
modification (resizing) of data to only
those that falls [sic, fall] within the
defined area (Fig. 8B).
The examiner then goes on to conclude that the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious because it "is pure common sense"
[answer, page 5] to limit mask areas of modification to one mask
set when two mask sets of different design rules are put side by
side, that labeling a defined area a "phantom mask" does not
distinguish over the "background prior art or the concept
illustrated in Morishita et al...and that using a global command
in place of plural individual commands are [sic] merely software
assisted convinience [sic, convenience]" [answer, page 5]. The
examiner further states, at page 5 of the answer, that the use of
known software tools "does not constitute an invention...when the
method of making essentially the same changes for generating a
new mask set are known."
Thus, the examiner has employed Morishita to illustrate
some broad "concept" of what the examiner considers the instant
claimed invention to be and buttresses this with unsupported
allegations of what would be "pure common sense" and "known" to
arrive, ostensibly, at the instant claimed subject matter.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007