Ex Parte DUPENLOUP - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2001-0571                                       Page 2           
          Application No. 09/026,790                                                  

               1. A method of generating synthesis scripts to synthesize              
          integrated circuit (IC) designs from a generic netlist                      
          description into gate-level description, said method comprising             
          the steps of:                                                               
               identifying hardware elements in the generic netlist;                  
               determining key pins for each of said identified hardware              
          elements;                                                                   
               extracting design structure and hierarchy from the Generic             
          netlist;                                                                    
               generating script to cause a logic synthesis tool to apply             
          bottom-up synthesis to modules and sub-modules of the IC design;            
               generating script to cause a logic synthesis tool to apply             
          top-down characterization to modules and sub-modules of the IC              
          design; and                                                                 
               generating script to cause a logic synthesis tool to repeat            
          said bottom-up and said top-down applications until constraints             
          are satisfied.                                                              
               The prior art reference of record relied upon by the                   
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:                               
          Gupte et al (Gupte)     5,812,416            September 22, 1998             
                                                  (filed July 18, 1996)               
               Claims 1-6 and 9-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)            
          as being anticipated by Gupte.  Rather than reiterate the                   
          conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant               
          regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the               
          examiner's answer (Paper No. 11, mailed October 3, 2000) for the            
          examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007