Appeal No. 2006-2382
Application 09/902,140
simulated values. The examiner has not made out a prima facie
case of anticipation. The rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, and 13 is
reversed.
Joshi
Appellants note that Joshi discloses an SOI circuit
simulation method where "DC analysis" is performed prior to
transient response simulation and the DC analysis appears to be
an assessment relative to an initial DC condition, but argue that
Joshi does not disclose comparing device response to two
different DC conditions or storing any information based on such
a comparison (Br5-6).
The examiner generally describes the teachings of Joshi
(EA5; EA9), but does not explain where each claim step is found
in Joshi. Joshi discloses performing an initial DC analysis,
step 1240 in Fig. 2, before performing a transient analysis, step
1260 in Fig. 2, but does not disclose performing a second
DC-simulation run at the end of a cycle or comparing the
simulated values to determine mismatch information. The examiner
has not made out a prima facie case of anticipation. The
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 13, and 14 is reversed.
Obviousness
The examiner finds that Sakamoto discloses a steady-state
simulation followed by a transient simulation, but that it does
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007