Appeal 2006-3123
Application 10/368,789
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 16 for
essentially the same reasons argued by the Examiner in the Answer and
discussed supra with respect to independent claim 1. In addition, we find
that Yu discloses determining instances of power and ground via sufficiency
in a package design. See col. 11, ll. 60-62, i.e., “The minimum number of
vias to be used in the special via rule for producing vias for standard cell
power/ground routing to the mesh is determined by a library,” see also col.
11, ll. 19-24, and col. 5, ll. 62-65. We also find that Yu discloses via
sufficiency rules for a package design, as discussed supra (see Fig. 10,
Rules 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5).
Claim 17
Appellants argue that Yu fails to disclose formulating one or more via
sufficiency rules (Br. 13).
The Examiner disagrees (Answer 5). See the Examiner’s response for
claim 1, supra.
We have noted supra that Yu explicitly discloses via sufficiency rules
6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 (See Fig. 10). We find that Yu’s via sufficiency
rules are inherently formulated, as discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
Claim 19
Appellants point out that claim 19 recites one of the via sufficiency
rules defines a power and ground via count per pad for one layer of the
electronic design, and includes determining whether each layer of the
electronic design has a requisite number of power and ground vias
associated with each pad of the one layer.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013