Ex Parte Gao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2018

12695391 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/695,391 01/28/2010 Tong Gao SNPS-1255 7831
36503 7590
PVF - SYNOPSYS, INC
c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP
2820 FIFTH STREET
DAVIS, CA 95618-7759
EXAMINER
AISAKA, BRYCE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2851
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
j eannie @parklegal. com
wendy@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TONG GAO and HENG-YI CHAO1
Appeal 2016-005586
Application 12/695,391
Technology Center 2800
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Synopsys, Inc.
Appeal 2016-005586
Application 12/695,391
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—8, 10—15, and 17—21. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
1. A computer-implemented method for routing a set of nets in a circuit
design, the method comprising:
partitioning the circuit design into a partition hierarchy, wherein
higher levels in the partition hierarchy have larger partition sizes than lower
levels in the partition hierarchy; and
routing a set of nets in the circuit design by, iteratively:
for each net in the set of nets, associating the net with a
partition in the partition hierarchy that completely encloses the net’s
bounding box, wherein each net’s bounding box encloses all pins of
the net;
routing nets in increasing order of levels in the partition
hierarchy, wherein nets associated with non-overlapping partitions are
routed in parallel using one or more processors; and
adjusting bounding boxes of nets which need to be routed
again;
wherein at least one net in the set of nets its assigned to a first
partition in a first level of the partition hierarchy in one iteration and to a
second partition in a second level is higher than the first level.
2
Appeal 2016-005586
Application 12/695,391
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 3—8, 10-15 and 17—21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ANALYSIS
To the extent that Appellants has presented substantive arguments for
the separate patentability of any individual claims on appeal, we will address
them separately consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective
positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence
supports the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that the subject matter of
Appellants’ claims are unpatentable as being directed to non-statutory
subject matter. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection on appeal
for the reasons set forth in the Final Office Action and in the Answer, and
affirm, with emphasis below.
Appellants present arguments on pages 13—17 of the Appeal Brief,
which we do not repeat herein. We are unpersuaded by such arguments for
the reasons provided by the Examiner in the record, particularly as presented
on pages 2—8 of the Answer, which we incorporate herein.
Appellants respond in the Reply Brief that their independent claims
provide an improvement to another technology or technical field.
Appellants argue that as illustrated in their Figure 1, and as explained in
paragraphs 31-43 of the Specification, the integrated circuit (IC) design and
fabrication technology includes multiple stages. Appellants submit that an
improvement to one or more stages (e.g., the physical implementation stage
3
Appeal 2016-005586
Application 12/695,391
described in paragraph 39 is an improvement to the IC designing and
fabricating technology or technical field. Appellants argue that page 8 in
the Examiner’s Answer mentions the Supreme Court case of Diamond v.
Diehr. Appellants note that, in the same way the process claim 1 in
Diamond v. Diehr provided an improvement to rubber curing technology
or technical field (i.e., “another technology or technical field”), their
independent claims provide an improvement to IC design and fabrication
technology or technical field (i.e., “another technology or technical field”).
Reply Br. 4.
However, in making the aforementioned arguments, Appellants
overlook the valid point made by the Examiner on page 6 of the Answer.
Therein, the Examiner explains that what Appellants dub as an improvement
in IC design (involving the claimed steps of routing of nets) is within the
realm of abstract ideas because these steps involve manipulation of
mathematical relationships. Ans. 6—7. Also, the Examiner states that with
specific regard to Appellants’ argument that “routing a set of nets in circuit
design” is clearly a specific application, the Examiner makes a valid point
that the asserted “specific application” is really an “idea” on how to design
a circuit, and the “idea” is run by algorithms in a generic computer. We
thus agree with the Examiner that the claims fail to include any such element
or combination of elements, amounting to “significantly more” than the
abstract idea. We are thus unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s position
in the record.
DECISION
The rejection is affirmed.
4
Appeal 2016-005586
Application 12/695,391
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
5