Appeal No. 1999-1608
Application No. 08/506,943
system to perform automatic routing or layout of conductor patterns on circuits such as
printed circuit boards and integrated circuits” [answer-page 5].
For their part, appellants contend that Bhaskaran does “recognize” symbols but is
not interested in “the essence of the circuit” [brief-page 6]. By contrast, according to
appellants, the instant invention is concerned with “determining inputs and outputs and
direction of signal flow” [brief-page 6].
Appellants further contend that neither Rostoker nor Rutenbar is in the same field of
endeavor as Bhaskaran and that, therefore, they cannot be properly combined with
Bhaskaran. Appellants identify Rostoker as beginning with a behavioral description of the
circuit to be designed and then generating an appropriate circuit meeting that behavioral
description, whereas Bhaskaran is concerned with generating a better pictorial
representation from a poor one. With regard to Rutenbar, appellants contend [brief-page
8] that this reference is concerned with “geography, not function” because Rutenbar needs
to know the geographic end points of the connection to be made and those areas on the
device which are available for running conductors. Appellants also opine that Rutenbar “is
dealing with conductor layout in two dimensions, and not schematic representation” and,
so, “he has no way of dealing with signal crossovers, a critical problem in Applicants’
invention” [brief-page 8].
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007