Appeal No. 97-2477
Application 08/212,908
Moreover, what is more important is what the appellant’s
specification regards as a behavioral description as opposed
to a structural description. Also, for the purpose evidently
intended by the examiner, it is inappropriate not to include
these references in the stated ground of rejection. See,
e.g., In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407
n.3 (CCPA 1970). Accordingly, these references have not been
considered.
As a further backup position, the examiner cited to
Watkins. (Answer at page 8). Specifically, the examiner
referred to column 2, lines 46-63 of Watkins which simply
describe in general terms that simulation may be performed at
several different levels, i.e., the component-level model
which describe the exact behavior of a specific component such
as a gate or a transistor, the high level behavioral model
which provides a logical or mathematical equation or set of
equations describing the behavior of the component, viewed as
a “black box”, and circuit-level models which comprise a
plurality of component-level or behavioral-level models. This
does not demonstrate that Dunn’s specific gate icons and logic
circuit icons are behavioral descriptions.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007