Appeal No. 2001-0571 Page 7
Application No. 09/026,790
disclosure or suggestion that the I/O netlist is a generic
netlist that is analyzed instead of analyzing the HDL code.
Accordingly, we agree with appellant (brief, page 3) that Gupte
adaptively generates scripts for driving the synthesis tool based
upon the input HDL code. As we stated, supra, inherency cannot
be established by possibilities or probabilities, but must
naturally flow from the operation of Gupte. Because we find no
support for the examiner's assertion that Gupte's HDL code is
inherently a generic netlist, we would have to resort to
speculation to find support for the examiner's position. The
examiner may not resort to speculation or unfounded assumptions
to supply deficiencies in establishing a factual basis. See In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967).
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of anticipation of the claimed
invention. The rejection of claims 1-6 and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) is therefore reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007