Appeal No. 2004-0573
Application No. 09/406,017
With respect to independent claim 1, appellants argue that the examiner has
“failed to consider the claimed invention as a whole and has failed to consider the
references as a whole.” (Brief at page 10.) Appellants further argue that the invention
in its broadest form, is a simulation monitor that detects a design verification event that
occurs during a simulation. (Brief at page 10.) We disagree with appellants’ conclusions
regarding the invention as a whole and the broadest form of the claimed invention.
Here, we would agree with the appellants, if the claims were as narrowly drawn as
appellants argue, but we disagree with appellants as to the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claims. For example, we do not find the word “simulation”
anywhere in independent claim 1. Nor do we find that the monitor is in addition to a
simulation program explicitly running and therefore is a separate and distinct entity
therefrom. Therefore, we disagree with appellants’ interpretation of the claimed
invention as a whole.
From our review of the claimed invention and the simulation system of Rostoker,
we find that the examiner’s position regarding the state table as a monitor is reasonable
in view of the breadth of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the examiner goes to
lengths to find and combine both the signal and bus declarations whereas we find that
the limitation “zero or more” completely deletes these limitations from the claim when
the “zero” is the broadest interpretation.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007