Appeal No. 1999-2681 Application No. 08/656,998 5.) We disagree with the examiner conclusions in the statement of the rejection. Furthermore, the examiner has not set forth any convincing line of reasoning or statement of motivation to combine the teachings of the two references in the statement of the rejection. While the examiner maintains that Simoudis teaches halting the execution, the examiner does not identify a teaching until page 7 of the answer in the response to argument section. The examiner cites to columns 1-2 of Simoudis to teach “halting the execution cycle.” This is discussed with respect to the background of the invention and three other related patent applications of Simoudis which matured into U.S. Patent 5,218,557, U.S. Patent 5,283,857 and U.S. Patent 5,101,362, but no further explanation or discussion with respect to the simulation is mentioned. Similar to the examiner’s statement of the rejection, there is no statement of a motivation to combine this teaching with those of Hyduke. Therefore, the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Furthermore, we have reviewed the teachings of these three patents which are incorporated into Simoudis, but we find no express teaching or suggestion of stopping or halting a simulation process. In our view, these three patents generally teach and suggest the redesign procedure in combination with the simulation and analysis of circuit operation, but these references provide no express teaching or suggestion of stopping or halting a 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007