Ex Parte HOLLANDER et al - Page 1




              The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
                                                                                      Paper No. 16            
                        UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                             
                                                 ____________                                                 
                             BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                               
                                          AND INTERFERENCES                                                   
                                                 ____________                                                 
                      Ex parte YOAV HOLLANDER, LEV PLOTNIKOV, and YARON KASHAI                                
                                                 ____________                                                 
                                             Appeal No. 2002-1305                                             
                                           Application No. 09/327,966                                         
                                                 ____________                                                 
                                                   ON BRIEF                                                   
                                                 ____________                                                 
            Before BARRETT, BARRY, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.                                    
            BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                               


                                            DECISION ON APPEAL                                                
                   A patent examiner rejected claims 1-20.  The appellants appeal therefrom under             
            35 U.S.C. § 134(a).  We reverse.                                                                  


                                               BACKGROUND                                                     
                   The invention at issue on appeal concerns "design verification."  Design                   
            verification is the process of determining whether a device under testing ("DUT")                 
            accurately implements requirements defined by a specification therefor.  Design                   
            verification for a DUT may be done on the actual device or on a simulation model                  
            thereof; the invention focuses on the latter.  (Spec. at 1.)                                      






Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007