Appeal No. 2006-1686
Application No. 10/040,055
Moreover, appellants contend that Agrawal fails to recognize
the problem of layout imperfections and the benefits of applying
shape identification to layout beautification and that it is
appellants who “have advantageously recognized the problem
presented by layout imperfections, which are electrically correct
and yet adversely affect layout printability or device
performance” (principal brief-page 16).
Appellants also argue that the examiner’s “picking and
choosing” from various shapes in various figures of Agrawal is
inappropriate and that Agrawal does not describe the claimed
first shape having the recited first, second, third, fourth, and
fifth edges (principal brief-page 17).
Thus, appellants conclude that Agrawal fails to disclose or
suggest layout beautification, layout imperfection, and the
recited edge configuration.
When the examiner responds that the layout beautification is
merely in a non-limiting preamble, since the claimed steps do not
include layout beautification or layout imperfections, appellants
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007