Appeal No. 2006-2819 Page 6
Application No. 10/980,575
each PST.” The PSTs are the power sources and the pin shapes, being part of the grid
sections 235, which in turn are part of a power grid, or network, constitute the claimed
“power grid.” Accordingly, Gould does teach “routing…sources to said second robust
power grid.”
Appellants declare that neither ultimate wire length nor small degrees of freedom
(small connections) can be interpreted as “routing a plurality of shortest distance
connections…,” as claimed (reply brief-page 3), but appellants never explain why this is
the case. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive of non-anticipation.
At page 5 of the principal brief, appellants argue that one of the inventors has
attested that the claimed routing step is not taught or suggested by Gould via an affidavit,
which further states that step 175 in Gould’s Figure 2 does not teach or suggest the
routing step. Again, we are unpersuaded since appellants do not explain, in the briefs,
why this conclusion is reached.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 19-21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 (e).
Since we have sustained the rejection of claims 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e)
but have not sustained the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e), the
examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007