Appeal No. 1997-1571 Application No. 08/048,123 The Section 103 rejection of claim 15 Claim 15 relates to "[a]n interactive graphic editing method for designing a semiconductor integrated circuit" with the step of "selecting an editing pattern object displayed on a graphic display. . ." (emphasis added). The term "editing pattern object" recited in claim 15, read in light of the specification and the preamble, refers, not to any type of "editing objects," but rather to those "editing objects" concerning "pattern" operation related to the design of "semiconductor integrated circuits." The term "design object" in Wada can be construed as an "editing object," but it does not read on the term "editing pattern object" recited in claim 15. Stated differently, Wada discloses "designing objects" for designing piping systems. Wada does not disclose an "editing pattern object" for the design of semiconductor integrated circuits as claimed. The secondary reference to Daniel does not cure these deficiencies. In our opinion, the examiner's proposed modification amounts to an impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention. Without having the benefit of appellant's teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have equated the step of selecting 9Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007