Appeal No. 2001-0571 Page 5
Application No. 09/026,790
specifically asserts (answer, page 16) that "Gupte's HDL code is
a generic netlist."
From the position taken by the examiner and our review of
Gupte, we agree with the examiner that Gupte is silent as to the
phrase "generic netlist." Thus, we find that the examiner relies
upon inherency to establish anticipation of appellant's claims.
As stated in In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326
(CCPA 1981) (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214, 40
USPQ 665, 667 (CCPA 1939)) (internal citations omitted):
Inherency, however, may not be established by
probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a
certain thing may result from a given set of
circumstances is not sufficient. If, however, the
disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural
result flowing from the operation as taught would
result in the performance of the questioned function,
it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should
be regarded as sufficient.
From our review of Gupte, we find no teaching or suggestion
of a generic netlist being created and analyzed in Gupte, but
rather that in Gupte (col. 13, line 65 through col. 14 ,line 3)
the synthesis tool 714 receives as input, HDL code and
constraints files 708, and foundry technology libraries 716 to
produce gate level netlists 718 (figure 12).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007