Appeal No. 95-3779
Application No. 08/191,063
look alike but are not discernible by the reverse engineer.
Thus, the invention, as claimed, has clear support in the instant
disclosure.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 15 and
21 under 35 U.S.C. ' 112, first paragraph.
Turning now to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. ' 103, we also
will not sustain these rejections. The examiner relies on
Figures 5 and 6 of Koeppe and on Figures 4 and 8 of Kuwana and
contends that the two figures, representative of logic circuits,
in each reference show layouts of different types of logic
circuits which “look alike” along with dopant implant
interconnections which are obviously not discernible by reverse
engineering.
Appellants do not deny, and, in fact, with respect to
Koeppe, admit [at page 5 of the principal brief], that the
principal references employ implanted interconnects that would
not be discernible to a reverse engineer. However, independent
claims 1 and 7 also require, with respect to claim 1, that the
logic circuits have “layouts which make said two logic circuits
look alike to a reverse engineer” and, with respect to claim 7,
that the logic gate have “a layout which makes it look like
another kind of logic gate.”
Notwithstanding any position of the examiner to the
contrary, we simply do not find the circuit layouts in Figures 5
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007