Appeal No. 2006-1595
Application No. 09/798,484
reconstruction of the claimed invention. And even if it were proper to combine
the references, all claimed limitations have not been disclosed by the prior art as
we indicated previously.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1, 12, and 22. Since we do not sustain the examiner's
rejection of independent claims 1 and 12, we likewise do not sustain the
examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2-6 and 13-20.
We next consider the examiner’s rejection of Claims 7, 9-11, 21, and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Burgoon in view of
Hellestrand, Martinolle, and further in view of Shinde. Regarding independent
claims 7, 21, and 23, the examiner’s rejection essentially finds that Burgoon
teaches all claimed limitations except for (1) automatically specifying a source
code function library configuration for hardware modeling simulation; (2) second
logic for (a) specifying a first configuration of the library when a stand-alone
source code simulation is to be performed, and (b) specifying a second
configuration of the library when a mixed-language simulation is to be performed,
where the different configurations enable the library to be used for stand-alone
source code simulation and mixed language simulation [answer, pages 18-21].
The examiner cites Hellestrand as teaching an apparatus for automatically
specifying a source code function library configuration for hardware modeling
simulation. The examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan at the time of the invention to automatically specify a source code function
20
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007