Ex Parte 5872952 et al - Page 28




              Appeal No. 2005-2512                                                                                         
              Reexamination Control No. 90/006,431                                                                         

              Second Ho Decl. para. 2 (emphasis added).20  The same distinction between RailMill                           
              and ChipViewer’s use therewith is observed in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Second Ho                            
              Declaration, which discuss the Arcadia Manual and the RailMill documents,                                    
              respectively:                                                                                                
                            4.   . . . [T]o the extent that the [Arcadia Manual] document refers to                        
                     RailMill and the use of ChipViewer to display the outputs from RailMill, it                           
                     describes our own implementation of the invention.                                                    
                            5.   . . . [T]o the extent that those [RailMill] documents describe                            
                     RailMill and the use of ChipViewer to display the outputs from RailMill,                              
                     they describe an embodiment of our invention, made by us.                                             
              Second Ho Decl. paras 4-5.  Consequently, we understand the term “RailMill” as used                          
              in this declaration to refer to the power net simulation engine and associated transistor                    
              network simulation engine but not ChipViewer.  Furthermore, insofar as ChipViewer is                         
              concerned, we do not understand that testimony to mean that Ho and Tuan invented                             
              ChipViewer per se.  Rather, it can reasonably be understood to mean that they used an                        
              existing ChipViewer product (presumably with some modification) to display the voltage                       
              drop and current information in the manner depicted in Figures 14A and 14B,                                  
                                                                                                                          
                     20  Because a Rule 131 attribution declaration is offered to prove inventorship                       
              (i.e., conception) and derivation of the subject matter relied on in the reference, it is not                
              necessary to consider the merits of the assertions of a reduction to practice.                               








                                                            28                                                             





Page:  Previous  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007