Appeal No. 97-2053
Application 08/229,624
1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by
the examiner are an essential part of complying with the
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
According to the examiner, Noble teaches a means for
constructing bounding boxes around the interconnect nets of
the integrated circuit and a means for computing the amount of
overlap of the bounding boxes [answer, pages 3-4]. The
examiner concludes that based on this disclosure, it would
have been obvious to the artisan to compute the cost factor as
a predetermined function of bounding box overlap because it
would enhance the field of view [Id.].
Appellants argue that Noble fails to teach or suggest
the following features set forth in each of independent claims
1, 15 and 17:
(1) performing a placement of cells on
an integrated circuit chip;
(2) computing a cost factor or
congestion for the placement of cells
on an integrated circuit chip;
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007