Appeal No. 2006-1686
Application No. 10/040,055
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Agrawal et al. (Agrawal) 6,523,162 Feb. 18, 2003
(filed Aug. 2, 2000)
Claims 11, 33, 37-43, and 55-99 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Agrawal.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
the four corners of a single prior art document describe every
element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice
the invention without undue experimentation. In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Taking claim 11 as exemplary, it is the examiner’s position
that Agrawal discloses a method for performing a layout
beautification operation on an IC layout comprising a plurality
of polygons at column 14, lines 16-19, column 5, lines 51-52, and
column 8, lines 45-48.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007