Appeal No. 2006-1686
Application No. 10/040,055
described and claimed by appellants. Agrawal is concerned with
layout processing and uses a shape-based layout processing scheme
for IC layout modifications.
When argued as such by appellants, the examiner’s only
response is that the layout beautification method of the instant
invention is only in a “non-limiting preamble” (answer-page 5).
Thus, the examiner does not deny that Agrawal fails to disclose a
“layout beautification” method, as that term is described by
appellants. The examiner contends that the instant specification
does not distinguish such a “layout beautification” method from
optical proximity correction (OPC) modification and design rule
checking (DRC). Accordingly, the examiner appears to equate
Agrawal’s OPC and DRC operations with the claimed “layout
beautification” operation.
We disagree with the examiner. While the specification
could have been clearer in explaining, or defining, “layout
beautification,” paragraphs [0003] through [0006] of the
specification do describe how OPC and DRC are automated tools
which have been used to perform various operations on an IC
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007