Appeal No. 2004-0573
Application No. 09/406,017
inclusion of “zero” in each limitation thereby negates the limitation. Therefore, this
argument is not persuasive.
Appellants conclude that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness. (Brief at page 22.) We disagree with appellants and find that Rostoker
alone teaches all of the limitations of the broadly recited claim limitations, and we will
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claims 6, 11, 16, and 21
which appellants have elected to group therewith.
With respect to dependent claim 2, appellants argue that the databases in Figure
8 are not described and that it is merely assumed that they would store design events
detected by a monitor during a simulation. (Brief at page 23.) Appellants further argue
that element 2914 is accessed by element 2401 and that there is no simulation monitor
tool. Again, this argument is based upon appellants’ interpretation of [simulation]
monitor which we disagree with above. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that it is clear that Rostoker does not teach a “database containing a
history of design events detected by a monitor running alongside a simulation.” Again,
we do not find this argument commensurate in scope with the language of dependent
claim 2. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 2 and dependent claims 7, 12, 17, and 22 which appellants have
elected to group therewith.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007