Appeal No. 2005-0001
Application No. 09/268,902
column 17, lines 3-11). We find that Mitsuhashi teaches that the current density
of each wire segment is calculated and compared to a maximum current density
as part of an evaluation to determine whether there will be electromigration
problems in the wiring (see Mitsuhashi column 16, lines 9-20). Thus, regardless
of whether the examiner’s rejection provides proper motivation to combine
Mitsuhashi and Huddleston, and Tuan or not , we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection, as appellant’s arguments do not shown a limitation of representative
claim 2 that Mitsuhashi does not teach.
Nonetheless, we find that the examiner’s rejection has provided the
motivation to combine the references. Tuan teaches a system for simulating a
transistor network to calculate current flow (See Tuan, column 2, lines 9-14).
Tuan teaches different methods of calculating current and that the segment
average current method should be used for electromigration analysis as it
provides good accuracy and efficient simulation speed (See Tuan, column 6,
lines 15-32). We find that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply
Tuan’s teaching of different methods of simulating current in integrated circuits to
Mitsuhashi’s circuit analysis with the goal of gaining quick and accurate results.
Thus, we find that the examiner has made a prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellant’s arguments on pages 15 and 16 of the brief, challenging the
examiner’s rationale in support of the motivation to combine the references do
not present any facts upon which to rebut the examiner’s prima facie case of
-15-
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007