Appeal No. 2002-1395 Page 12
Application No. 08/789,702
Turning to Kirsch, we find that its computer system identifies the references in
the description of the circuit, i.e., the macro instantiations in the source code.
Specifically, "[a]s . . . shown in FIG. 3 et seq., the preprocessor 14 first locates a macro
instantiation. . . ." Col. 5, ll. 27-29. We further find that once a macro instantiation is
identified, the preprocessor incorporates the (macro) definition that corresponds to the
instantiation into the description. Specifically, if "the line of data instead represents a
macro instantiation (block 54), a routine for substituting the macro instantiation with a
macro definition, as further described below in FIG. 5, is called. . . ." Col. 6, ll. 53-56.
Therefore, we affirm the anticipation rejection of claim 2
Third, the examiner asserts, "Kirsch discloses macros . . . col. 3, line 20 to col. 4,
line 50. . . ." (Examiner's Answer at 16.) Observing that "[c]laim 3 is a method claim
which depends from claim 2 and further limits the 'behavioral description,' (Appeal Br.
at 30, the appellants allege, "[t]his is not taught in any of the prior art of record." (Id.)
Claim 3 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "the behavioral
description of the circuit design is stored in a file. . . ." Giving the claim its broadest,
reasonable construction, the limitations require storing the description of the circuit.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007