Appeal No. 2006-1686
Application No. 10/040,055
We also disagree with the examiner’s attempt to disassociate
the claim preamble from the body of the claim. The performance
of “layout beautification” is recited in the preamble of claim
11, but this operation clearly relates to the configuration of
the first shape “to match a first type of layout imperfection”
recited at lines 9-10 of the claim.
Since Agrawal fails to describe any “layout imperfections”
and/or “layout beautification,” as described and claimed by
appellants, and the examiner has not convinced us of any
equivalents in Agrawal to these recited features, we will not
sustain the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
We also will not sustain the rejection of claims 33, 37, 38,
39-43, 55-64, 72-90, and 96-99 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as these
claims also recite a layout beautification technique.
Claims 65-71 and 91-95 do not recite a layout beautification
technique explicitly, but they do recite the correction of layout
imperfections and describe how corrective action to the layout is
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007