Appeal No. 1999-2681
Application No. 08/656,998
Applicants' claims. Applicants respectfully request the Honorable Board to
reverse the Examiner's rejections.
In our view appellants arguments are quite broad and merely address the teachings of
the references individually. We do not find these arguments persuasive. Appellants also
argue and state that the examiner has relied upon hindsight in the rejection, but the
argument does not provide an analysis of basis for this conclusion. Therefore, we do not
find this argument persuasive. In light of appellants arguments, we have reviewed the
examiner rejection to determine if the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness.
In our view, the examiner’s statement of the rejection is similarly brief and fairly
sweeping. (See answer at pages 3-5.) The examiner’s statement of the rejection
reiterates the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to stop the simulation. The examiner repeats the
citations to columns 2, 7, 8 and 9 of Simoudis to support the contention that the skilled
artisan would have been motivated to stop or halt the simulation. In our view, the portions
of Simoudis relied upon by the examiner does not support this contention. Furthermore,
the examiner seems to be of the opinion that when a simulation system changes from a
simulation mode of operation to a redesign mode, then the simulation is stopped or that it
would have been obvious to skilled artisans to stop the simulation. (See answer at page
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007