Appeal No. 2005-0001
Application No. 09/268,902
obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of the claims in
group B, claims 2-5, 42 and 44.
Group C (Claims 6-11, 13, 15-26, 28 and 30-35)
Appellant states on pages 16 and 17 of the brief that in addition to the
limitations discussed with respect to claim 1, independent claims 6 includes a
limitation of analyzing current density in wire segments for a power bus in an
integrated circuit core, and claim 21 includes the limitation of analyzing the
voltage drop in wire segments for a power bus in an IC. On pages 17 through 21
of the brief, appellant presents the same arguments concerning Mitsuhashi and
the motivation to combine Mitsuhashi and Huddleston discussed supra with
respect to claim 1.
We note, on pages 19 through 21of the brief, appellant only argues the
limitations common to claim 1, and does not argue any of the limitations that
claims 6 and 26 do not share with claim 1. Accordingly, we are not convinced by
appellant’s arguments for the reasons stated supra with respect to claim 1.
On pages 20 and 21 of the brief, appellant presents the same arguments
concerning Tuan and the motivation to combine Tuan discussed supra with
respect to claim 2.
Similarly, we are not convinced by appellant’s arguments for the reasons
stated supra with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims in group B, claims 6-11, 13, 15-26, 28 and 30-35.
Group D (claims 12, 14, 27 and 29)
-16-
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007