Appeal No. 1997-1571
Application No. 08/048,123
integrated circuit" as recited in claims 9 and 16 (Brief, page
7; Answer, page 3). The examiner, however, has determined
that "Daniel et al. teaches that the use of CAD for designing
integrated circuits that are to be used for simulation was a
well known practice in the art" (Answer, page 3). As such,
the examiner has concluded that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art "to assign attribute values
to a semiconductor IC instead of a piping system, since Daniel
et al. has taught that ICs can be designed efficiently. .
.using the CAD" (Answer, page 3).
Appellant has argued (Brief, page 7) that there is no
rationale for the examiner's modification of Wada, that the
applied prior art does not meet the claim limitations, and
that Daniel appears not to disclose the storage of
"attributes of editing objects necessary for simulating IC
characteristics" (emphasis in original). We agree with
appellant.
Reviewing the prior art relied on by the examiner, we
find that neither Wada nor Daniel discloses or suggests the
claim limitation "an attribute data base storage unit in which
attributes of various editing objects necessary for simulating
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007