Appeal No. 2006-1686
Application No. 10/040,055
argue that this is a new ground of rejection because appellants
have been arguing the layout beautification and layout
imperfection limitations throughout the prosecution of the case
and the examiner has only in the answer concluded that such
limitations appear in the non-limiting preamble.
With regard to independent claim 11, it is true that Figure
4c of Agrawal shows a first shape comprising the first, second,
third, fourth and fifth edges, as claimed.
However, claim 11 also requires that the first shape be
“configured to match a first type of layout imperfection.” The
examiner says that this limitation is described in Agrawal at
lines 20-23 of column 14. The reference portion identified is
within claim 1 of the patent reference and recites:
accessing a definition of a first shape comprising
a first edge and a second edge coupled in accordance with
a first plurality of properties associated with the first
shape.
This portion of Agrawal mentions nothing about “layout
imperfection.” In fact, Agrawal appears to having nothing to do
with layout imperfections or “layout beautification,” as
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007