Appeal No. 2004-1839
Application No. 09/921,604
20. A circuit modification method comprising the steps of:
determining whether a glitch error is caused in said predetermined
wire by an aggressor comprised of one or more other wires;
when determining that a glitch error is caused in said
predetermined wire by an aggressor, replacing a driving circuit for driving
said predetermined wire with another one having a higher driving ability
than the driving circuit.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Tam 5,900,759 May 04, 1999
Young et al. (Young) 6,378,109 Apr. 23, 2002
(filed Jun. 30, 2000)
Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over
Young. While not recited in the statement of rejection, the examiner cites Tam merely
as an example of increasing the size of a driver by increasing the size of a buffer.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. §103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to
establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007