Appeal No. 1999-0007
Application 08/688,218
Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir.
1995)(citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721
F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984)).
The Examiner reasons that Upton teaches generating a
specific version of an integrated circuit by design rules
corresponding to a first process technology. The Examiner
asserts this would imply having a database for storing the design
information. (answer-pages 2 and 3.) The Examiner states:
If a version of the module is needed
in a different rule set [i.e.
different process technology], a
design rule variable file containing
these new values can be substituted
for the original file corresponding to
mapping data as claimed. This
substituted file for the original file
would be another database
corresponding to a design process
technology for a second manufacturing
process. Thus data files would imply
having databases for storing design
information for different versions or
different manufacturing processes.
[answer-page 3.][Emphasis added.]
However, the Examiner notes, Upton does not explicitly mention
that generating a new integrated circuit according to the process
technology is accomplished through the use of a place and route
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007