Appeal No. 2005-0001
Application No. 09/268,902
We disagree. Claim 39 includes the limitation “the operation of accepting
design information of said integrated circuit core comprises choosing one of (i) a
first mode… and (ii) a second mode… .” We find that Cohen is concerned with
designing optical integrated circuits. (See title and abstract). Cohen states, “The
design of optical circuits, in contrast to electrical circuits, has considerations
which can not be directly translated from the electrical arts.” (See column 2, lines
60-62). Further, the examiner has not shown why one of ordinary skill would look
to a teaching of how to layout an optical circuit, which does not have a power-
bus-grid, to modify a system for current analysis of the power-bus-grid in an
electronic circuit. Thus, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 39.
Group G (claim 43)
Appellant’s arguments directed to the rejection of claim 43, on page 30 of
the brief, are similar to those presented with respect to claims 12, 14, 27 and 29
(Group D).
We are not persuaded by these arguments, and for the reasons stated
supra with respect to claim 12, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 43.
Group H (Claim 45).
Appellant argues on pages 32 and 33 of the brief that claim 45 is
dependent upon claim 1 and that the arguments in support of claim 1 also apply.
Appellant also argues that the examiner’s rejection fails to provide particular
findings as to the reasons that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to combine the references.
-20-
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007