Appeal No. 95-3265
Application 08/047,162
However, the examiner has not applied Morishita to the
instant claim language in any meaningful way in order to clearly
show exactly how one differs from the other so that the examiner
can then clearly show how, and why, in spite of these
differences, the instant claimed subject matter would have been
obvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103.
In fact, from our review of Morishita, it appears that
the reference has very little relevance to the instant claimed
subject matter. Other than a mention in column 1 of the
reference of "modifying a design rule" [line 46] and "a merge
process" [line 50] for eliminating overlap generated between
patterns, Morishita appears to be directed to something very
different from the instant claimed invention.
Morishita is interested in reducing processing time in
pattern processing whereas the instant claimed subject matter is
limiting the number of commands necessary to alter patterns of
the mask layout database for an integrated circuit using
different design rules. As appellant states, at page 15 of the
brief,
[t]he specific design rules recited in
the claims as being conformed are not
even mentioned in the reference. Nor is
the use of a phantom mask for this
purpose.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007