Appeal No. 2005-2512
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,431
Second Ho Decl. paras. 6-7. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Ho is correct
to conclude that the images appearing at page 86 of Tiwary (i.e., Figures 3 and 4) and
the image in Figure 2 of Deng were generated using ChipViewer, that fact is insufficient
to remove those images or their associated descriptions as prior art, because neither
Ho nor any other witness has testified that these ChipViewer images represent the
outputs generated by RailMill, i.e., by Ho and Tuan’s power-net simulation engine.26
Appellant has therefore failed to establish that the subject matter relied on in Tiwary and
Deng was invented by Ho and Tuan and thus does not constitute prior art. However, as
explained below, for other reasons the rejections are being reversed to the extent they
are based on these references.
I. The effect of the foregoing holdings on the grounds of rejection
In view of the foregoing holdings, we are reversing the rejections to the extent
they rely on (a) any of the RailMill documents or (b) the Arcadia Manual to the extent it
discloses the RailMill power net simulation engine and associated transistor network
simulation engine and the use of ChipViewer to display RailMill information. Therefore,
the only grounds of rejection left for our consideration are the rejections of:
(a) Claims 1-6, 9, and 16-18 under § 102(b) for anticipation by Stark;
26 Because it is not evident from an inspection of Tiwary and Deng that the
images in question depict ChipViewer images produced using RailMill, any testimony to
that effect by Ho would have been unpersuasive in the absence of an explanation of the
factual basis for such testimony.
44
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007