Appeal 2006-3123
Application 10/368,789
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of anticipation relied
upon by the Examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
evidence relied upon supports the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 16,
17, 20, and 21, but does not support the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-6,
8-10, and 19. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
GROUPING OF CLAIMS
We consider separately the anticipation of each claim on appeal, as
designated under separate subheadings and argued separately by Appellants
in the Briefs.
Claim 1
Appellants argue that Yu does not disclose formulating one or more
via sufficiency rules as required by step (a) of claim 1 (emphasis added).
Appellants contend that Yu merely discloses a via analysis specific to an
ASIC power design (emphasis added). Appellants further assert that Yu
fails to disclose via checking for layers of a package design, and therefore
cannot anticipate claim 1 (Br. 10).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013