Appeal No. 95-3265
Application 08/047,162
Further, as appellant points out, at page 16 of the brief,
Morishita is deficient in at least three aspects which form part
of each and every one of the twenty-two claims on appeal:
(1) the combining of two integrated
circuit mask databases, (2) the method
to combine two or more databases of
circuits executed with different design
rules, and (3) the use of a global or
single set of commands in pattern
generating software to make such changes
to all the polygons necessary to effect
a design rule change in that database.
In response to this argument, at page 6 of the answer,
the examiner contends that Morishita clearly teaches combining
mask set databases, identifying Figs. 1A, 1B and 2, along with
column 1, and further contends that this is well known according
to the background section of the instant specification. The
examiner also contends that the steps are also described in
"other cited references such as Pryor et al."
First, with regard to the reference to "other cited
references," such references form no part of the rejection and
may not be relied on by the examiner. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d
1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970). Next, we have
reviewed the portions of Morishita referred to by the examiner
and while it appears that Morishita discloses a merge process to
eliminate overlap in a resizing process, it is unclear whether
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007