Appeal No. 2002-0550
Application No. 09/264,770
prior art, McNelly and Misheloff to justify an anticipation
rejection.
We agree with appellants’ arguments. The mere fact that the
admitted prior art “discloses a prior art teaching of the
incorporation of P, V, T variations using scaling factors” (final
rejection, page 4) does not necessarily mean that the admitted
prior art teaches a method of producing a logic cell in the
manner set forth in substeps (a.4) through (a.6) of the claimed
invention. The rejection lacks a showing as to how the teachings
of the admitted prior art anticipates the six substeps of the
claimed invention. With respect to the teachings of the two
applied references, the examiner has reproduced the abstracts
from each reference verbatim in the rejection (final rejection,
pages 4 and 5), and noted several columns and lines in each
reference for review (final rejection, page 5). We have reviewed
the abstracts in the two references, and the referenced columns
and lines in each reference, and we can not find any disclosure
of the claimed method substeps (a.4) through (a.6) in such
teachings.
In view of the foregoing, the anticipation rejection of
claims 1 through 21 is reversed because the examiner has not made
a prima facie showing of anticipation.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007