Appeal No. 1999-2681
Application No. 08/656,998
It is respectfully submitted that Hyduk[e] does not disclose or suggest the
presently claimed invention including the comparator circuit to compare the
simulated output signal with the output signals to describe the expected
output of the digital circuit and wherein the operation of the simulation is
stopped if the difference is greater than a threshold value.
Applicants agree with the Examiner that Hyduk[e] does not require the
simulation to stop if the difference has exceeded a threshsold [sic, threshold]
as claimed, as evidenced by page 3, lines 14-16 of the Final Office Action.
Hyduk[e] could not achieve the above mentioned advantages.
Furthermore, Simoudis does not disclose or suggest the presently claimed
invention including the comparator circuit to compare the simulated output
signal with the output signals to describe the expected output of the digital
circuit to determine the difference between the simulated output value and
the output signal wherein the operation of the simulation is stopped if the
difference is greater than a threshold value.
Simoudis discloses the operation when the discrepancies and the
discrepancy causes are disjoint and when the discrepancies and the
discrepancy causes are related. Under such conditions, Simoudis discloses
a particular operation. However, this operation does not include stopping
the simulation, and consequently, Simoudis does not disclose the presently
claimed invention.
Despite requests, no prior art has been produced as required by
§ 2144.03 of the MPEP. How can this aspect be well known when the Examiner
cannot show this aspect in a single reference. It is not well known, and the
Examiner is only using this faulty reasoning because no art can be found. No prior
art exists.
None of the applied prior art references discloses or suggests the presently
claimed invention including stopping the operation of the simulation if the
difference is greater than a threshold value.
There is only one place that this is taught, and this is in the Applicants'
specification. The Examiner has used impermissible hindsight to reject
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007