Appeal No. 2001-0326
Application 09/007,138
fact." See In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 1000, 150 USPQ2d 1614,
(Fed. Cir. 1999), In re Sichert, 566 F.2d 1154, 1164, 196 USPQ
209, 217 (CCPA 1977). Without such evidence, we cannot find that
Jimbo anticipates Appellant’s conversion of an input
representation suitable for a circuit design program to an output
representation suitable for a package design program.
Consequently, the Examiner’s § 103 rejection based on Jimbo of
claims 1, 12, and 23 is reversed.
REVERSED.
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
MAHSHID SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF:pgg
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007