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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007