Appeal 2006-3421
Application 09/751,889
a simulation execution unit that executes one of: (1) a simulation
corresponding to the future-forecasting scenario using parameters of the
design-supporting scenario indicating that said system satisfies the
performance standard, or (2) a simulation of the design-supporting scenario
using parameters of the future-forecasting scenario indicating that said
system does not satisfy the predetermined performance standard in the
future.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Brockel US 6,058,260 May 2, 2000
Henderson US 6,556,539 Apr. 29, 2003
(filed Feb. 22, 1996)
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3 to 5, 9, 11, 13, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Henderson and Brockel.
Appellants contend that neither reference teaches or would have
suggested to the skilled artisan a simulator that interrelates the future-
forecasting scenario and the design-supporting scenario as set forth in the
claims on appeal (Br. 5), and that the Examiner has not cited to any
objective teaching or suggestion as motivation to combine the references
(Br. 9 to 12).
We sustain.
ISSUE
Is a simulator that interrelates future-forecasting scenario parameters
and design-supporting scenario parameters taught by or would have been
suggested to the skilled artisan by either Henderson or Brockel?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013