Ex Parte Alpert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 2, 2016

13485828 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/485,828 05/31/2012
108176 7590 08/02/2016
Heslin Rothenberg Farley & Mesiti/ GlobalFoundries
5 Columbia Circle
Albany, NY 12203
Charles J. Alpert
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
5120.0l l/AUS920120150US 3634
EXAMINER
WHITMORE, STACY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2851
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte CHARLES J. ALPERT, GI-JOONNAM, CHINNGAI SZE,
PAUL G. VILLARRUBIA, and NATARAJANVISWANATHAN
Appeal2014-008253
Application 13/485,828
Technology Center 2800
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1through14, and 16 through 20. We reverse.
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to an improved circuit design system.
See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A circuit design system comprising:
a computer processor to perform a placement for a circuit
by physical synthesis;
a controller to compute a preferred location of at least one
selected element of the circuit, the preferred location is computed
Appeal2014-008253
Application 13/485,828
based on a calculated attraction force, the attraction force
decreases as a distance between the selected element's preferred
location and a location in a previous physical synthesis result
increases, and to calculate placement constraints for each
selected element; and
an updated design for the circuit generated by performing
another round of physical synthesis with the placement
constraints.
REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 14, and 16 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by McElvain (US 2009/0031277
Al; publ. Jan. 29, 2009). Final Action 2---6. 1
ANALYSIS
The issue presented by Appellants' arguments is whether the
Examiner erred in finding McElvain teaches computing attractive forces
between an element's preferred location and a location in a previous
physical synthesis result, as recited in each of independent claims 1, 8, and
16. Appeal Br. 6-7.
The Examiner, in response to Appellants' arguments, finds McElvain
teaches an iterative process which uses a Force Directed Placement
algorithm to make calculations based on the force of attraction between
objects in the circuit design. Answer 4 (citing paras. 104---05). We concur
with the Examiner as to this finding. The Examiner further finds that
McElvain teaches computing the attraction force between a location from a
1 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 14,
2014) ("Appeal Br."), Reply Brief (filed July 23, 2014) ("Reply Br."), and
the Examiner's Answer (mailed May 23, 2014) ("Answer").
2
Appeal2014-008253
Application 13/485,828
previous synthesis result and a preferred location. Answer 4--5 (citing paras.
53, 56, 100--05). We have reviewed the cited portions of McElvain and
disagree with the Examiner as to this point; the cited portions of McElvain
do not teach using locations from two iterations of the circuit arrangement
for the computation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 14, and 16 through 20.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 14, and 16
through 20 is reversed.
REVERSED
3