Appeal No. 2005-2512
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,431
Considering first the Arcadia Manual, as evidence of motivation the examiner
cites page 1-1 and more particularly the assertion that visualization of modern
VLSI/ULSI chips consisting of millions of devices is a critical factor in successful circuit
design and the description of ChipViewer as providing fast visualization of the IC or any
part of the IC. Fin.Act. 21 para. 33. We agree with this reasoning to the extent it is
based on the Arcadia Manual’s disclosure of using ChipViewer with simulators other
than RailMill. Furthermore, as noted above, ChipViewer as used with these other
simulators appears to include the zoom feature, which permits display of selected
portions of the circuitry under analysis, as required by the claims. Appellant’s sole
argument against relying on the Arcadia Manual’s disclosure of ChipViewer is that
ChipViewer per se is not prior art (Br. 28; R.Br. 2330), which argument fails to recognize
that ChipViewer is disclosed in the Arcadia Manual as being useful with simulators other
than RailMill. The rejection of claim 17 for obviousness over Stark in view of Arcadia
Manual is therefore affirmed, as is the rejection on this ground of claims 1-6, 9, 16, and
18, which are not separately argued. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(vii).
However, the rejection is reversed to the extent it is alternatively based on Deng
or Tiwary. While those references disclose using what appears to be graphical user
interfaces for displaying the outputs of simulators, including a PowerMill simulator and
power-net simulators under development, the examiner has not explained why, nor is it
30 Reference to pages of the reply brief are to the page numbers at the bottom of
the pages.
51
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007