11257318 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2011)

Ex Parte Patzer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 31, 2011

11257318 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2011)

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. 11/257,318 10/24/2005 Aaron T. Patzer 120719.05025/10PA017 9712 87979 7590 02/01/2011 Cadence Design Systems, Inc. c/o/ Holland & Knight LLP 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116-3889 EXAMINER WHITMORE, STACY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2825 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/01/2011 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte AARON T. PATZER and JOHN F. CROIX ____________ Appeal 2009-010584 Application 11/257,318 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, THOMAS S. HAHN and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-010584 Application 11/257,318 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-21. See Appeal Brief 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We reverse. Exemplary Claim 1. A method comprising: retaining at least a portion of simulation results corresponding to a first simulateable partition from a previous simulation time; and using the simulation results for a second simulateable partition at a current simulation time, wherein the second simulateable partition is equivalent to the first simulateable partition and one or more input stimuli to the second simulateable partition at the current simulation time are approximately the same as the input stimuli to the first simulateable partition at the previous simulation time. Rejection on Appeal Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being unpatentable over McGaughy (US 2005/0149312 A1). Appellants’ Contention Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being unpatentable over McGaughy. Appellants contend that McGaughy only permits the use of simulation results from the same point to be reused. See Appeal Brief 6. 2 Appeal 2009-010584 Application 11/257,318 PRINCIPLES OF LAW “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). ISSUE ON APPEAL Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-21 as being unpatentable because the reference fails to disclose the claim limitation at issue? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection and in light of Appellants’ arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) determine that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with the Examiner’s determination that McGaughy’s use of simulation information as predicted results for another simulation partition is an inherent property and that in order to use the information for a following simulation module or partition, the information being reused had to have occurred prior to the reuse of the information (Answer 7). The Examiner relies upon Figures 4A and 4B as well as paragraphs [0104-0107] of McGaughy. Id. We find Appellants’ argument that any variation in the inputs of circuit sections at a given time causes the redundancy lock to be broken (see Figures 4A and 4B of McGaughy) is persuasive and therefore McGaughy does not use the simulation results from a previous time point as the 3 Appeal 2009-010584 Application 11/257,318 simulation results at a current time point as required in independent claims 1, 9 and 17. See Appeal Brief 6; Reply Brief 2-4, 6-7. Accordingly we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 as well as their respective dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-21. CONCLUSION The Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1-21 as being unpatentable. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21 is reversed. 4 Appeal 2009-010584 Application 11/257,318 REVERSED ELD CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. C/O/ HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 10 ST. JAMES AVENUE BOSTON, MA 02116-3889 5