Appeal No. 2006-1686
Application No. 10/040,055
OPC (see page 1 of the instant specification). Therefore, the
description at column 3, lines 4, 5, and 12-16, of Agrawal cannot
describe the claimed “layout imperfections.”
Because Agrawal has not been shown to our satisfaction to
describe the “layout beautification” and “layout imperfection” as
claimed and described in the instant specification at paragraphs
[0003] through [0006], which is the meaning we ascribe to these
terms in the instant claims, we have not sustained the rejection
of any of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
We do note, in passing, however, that we are troubled by
claims 11, 33, 37-43, 55-57, 59-64, and 85 because these claims,
while reciting the performance of a layout beautification, do not
specifically recite any actions, such as corrective actions,
replacements, etc. which would actually effect such a layout
beautification. As such, the claims appear to be incomplete or
indefinite in some manner. However, there is no rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, before us as the examiner has
apparently determined that no such problem exists.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007