Appeal No. 2005-2512
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,431
L. The rejection of Claims 1-6, 9, and 16-18 under § 103(a) over
Rusu in view of the Arcadia Manual (excluding RailMill and
associated use of ChipViewer), Tiwary, or Deng
Rusu discloses a method and apparatus to model the power network of a VLSI
circuit. The method includes the step of extracting the power network associated with a
semiconductor circuit layout and then deriving a compacted power network from the
power network. Rusu, col. 2, ll. 18-22. The operation of the compacted power
network is simulated on a circuit simulation program to identify areas in the compacted
power network that do not comply with predetermined power network performance
criteria, such as electromigration limits and voltage drop limits. Id. at col. 2, ll. 34-39.
Appellant does not deny that Rusu discloses all of the limitations recited in claim
17 apart from the graphical user interface limitations, for which the examiner relies on
Arcadia Manual, Tiwary, or Deng. The examiner’s reliance on the ChipViewer in the
Arcadia Manual is convincing in this rejection for the same reasons that are given in
above in the discussion of the § 103 rejection in which Stark is the primary reference.
Furthermore, his reliance on Tiwary and Deng is unconvincing for the reasons given
that discussion. Appellant’s criticism of the proposed combination of teachings of Rusu
and the Arcadia Manual on the ground that ChipViewer is not available as prior art, Br.
29-30, is unavailing for the reasons noted above.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-6, 9, and 16-18 for obviousness over Rusu
in view of Arcadia Manual is affirmed to the extent based on Rusu in view of the Arcadia
53
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007