Appeal No. 2001-2692 Page 15
Application No. 08/789,001
the anticipation rejection of claim 1 and of claims 4-27 and 31-35, which fall therewith,
by Aubertine.
Second, observing that claim 2 "further limits the some [sic] of the macro cells,"
(Appeal Br. at 29), the appellants argue, "none of the prior art of record teaches this
limitation." (Id.) They make a similar argument regarding claim 28. (Id. at 40.)
Analogously, observing that claim 29 "further limits the macro cells," (Appeal Br. at 40),
the appellants argue, "[t]he prior art of record does not contain this element." (Id.) As
construed in addressing the rejection by Modarres, claims 2 and 28 require at least one
input, and claim 29 requires at least one output.
Turning to the reference, Aubertine describes its I/O pins as "[i]nput/[o]utput
wires leading to or from a component of a computer system." Col. 1, ll. 21-22.
Because the method of the reference assigns input wires and output wires, we find that
it includes inputs and outputs. Therefore, we affirm the anticipation rejection of
claims 2, 28, and 29 by Aubertine.
Third, observing that claim 30 "further limits the macro cells to include bi-
directional cells," (Appeal Br. at 41), the appellants argue, "[t]he prior art of record does
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007