Appeal No. 2006-1595
Application No. 09/798,484
Appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine the references
[brief, page 19]. Specifically, appellants contend that the examiner merely relied
on the utility of the underlying claimed features as the motivation to combine the
references [id.]. Appellants also argue that the cited prior art does not disclose
the second logic limitation second logic for (1) specifying a first configuration of
the library when a stand-alone source code simulation is to be performed, and (2)
specifying a second configuration of the library when a mixed-language
simulation is to be performed [brief, pages 19 and 20; emphasis added].
Appellants emphasize that such a limitation specifically recites an alternative
configuration that is not taught nor suggested by the prior art references [brief,
page 20]. Appellants note that the examiner cited two different references for
each recited alternative – namely Hellestrand (stand-alone source code
simulation) and Shinde (mixed-language simulation) [id.].
The examiner responds that the skilled artisan would take the teachings of
Hellestrand and Shinde and the motivations provided by them to select mixed
model simulation models with a first configuration of the library when a stand-
alone source code simulation is to be performed and a second configuration of
the library when a mixed-language simulation is to be performed [answer, pages
43 and 44]. The examiner further contends that because Shinde teaches
multiple simulation models (i.e., functional model, language model, and structural
model), the skilled artisan would select the appropriate library depending on
which model is used [answer, page 45].
22
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007