Appeal No. 2005-2512
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,431
power net, as also required by the claim. Instead, each figure depicts the entire circuit
under analysis.
The examiner is incorrect to argue that a graphical user interface is inherently
present because “Stark discloses that the package that the disclosure in the Theses is
implemented on ‘Ariel’, which is a CAD [computer-aided design] package.” Second
Office Action 51 para. 115 (adhered to in Fin.Act. 49, para. 118; Ans. 21). As appellant
correctly notes, “Ariel” is the name Stark gives to his disclosed analysis tool and is an
acronym of “Analyzer for Resistance and current (I) ELements.” Stark 2 & n.1. It is not
a graphical user interface.
The rejection of claim 17 under § 102(b) for anticipation by Stark is therefore
reversed. Because the other independent claims (i.e., claims 1, 16, and 18) recite
similar limitations, we are also reversing the § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-6, 9, 16, and
18 on that ground.
49
Page: Previous 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007