Appeal No. 1997-0553
Application No. 08/409,191
function of the original circuit block. Id. We do not find this argument persuasive because
we find no basis in the claim language to support this argument.
Appellants argue that the invention maintains confidentiality of proprietary
information, but appellants do not cite any specific language in claim 1 to support this
argument. (See brief at page 6.) Alternatively, we find no support in claim 1 for this
argument.
Appellants argue that the present invention improves the global optimization
process rather than merely the gate level synthesis optimization. Id. Again, it is the
language of the claim which we must address, and appellants have not cited any language
in claim 1 to support this argument. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that none of the cited references use a proxy for a functional block
in which only the timing and load features of the functional block need to be maintained. Id.
(Emphasis added.) We disagree with appellants since once again we find no support for
this argument in claim 1. Therefore, since appellants have not rebutted the prima facie
case of obviousness, we will sustain the rejection of claim 1. Being that appellants have
grouped all claims as standing or falling as a single group, it follows that we will similarly
sustain the rejection of claim 2-28.
CONCLUSION
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007