Appeal No. 2006-1686
Application No. 10/040,055
A fourth edge, contiguous with and substantially
perpendicular to the third edge, is said to be taught by Agrawal
in Figures 4a-4c, 5a-5d, 6a-6e, 7a-7c, and particularly in Figure
4c, wherein the fourth edge E434 is contiguous and substantially
perpendicular with the third edge E433.
Finally, the examiner asserts that Agrawal discloses a fifth
edge being contiguous with and substantially perpendicular to the
fourth edge, wherein none of the first edge, the second edge, the
third edge, the fourth edge, and the fifth edge are substantially
side-by-side with each other, at column 6, lines 44-51, column
17, lines 10-21, and in Figures 4a-4c, 5a-5d, 6a-6e, 7a-7c, in
particular, Figure 4c, wherein the fifth edge E435 is contiguous
and substantially perpendicular with the fourth edge E434.
Appellants’ position is that while Agrawal teaches applying
layout processing to an IC layout using a shape-based
identification system, Agrawal does not disclose or suggest
layout beautification or a layout imperfection as recited in the
instant claims.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007