Ex parte Tanino et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 28, 1998

08134798 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 28, 1998)

Application for patent filed October 12, 1993. 1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte NORIYUKI TANINO and
YOSHINOBU SASAKI

_____________
Appeal No. 96-1413
Application 08/134,7981
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, JERRY SMITH and CARMICHAEL, Administrative
Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 96-1413
Application 08/134,798
2
Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 to 10, which constitute all the
claims in the application.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method of designing the layout of milliwave and
microwave integrated circuits using a computer aided design
system comprising:
displaying each a plurality of kinds of lumped circuit
elements and distributed constant transmission lines for an
integrated circuit on a cathode ray tube display as respective
closed drawing objects, each closed drawing object having an
area and dimension representing electrical data and edges for
overlapping respective edges of other drawing objects to
establish electrical connections between respective lumped
circuit elements and transmission lines represented by
corresponding drawing objects;
connecting the closed drawing objects displayed on the
cathode ray tube display by overlapping the edges but not the
areas of respective pairs of a plurality of the closed drawing
objects to produce a virtual integrated circuit having the
circuit construction of the integrated circuit; and
performing logical operations on the drawing objects of
the virtual integrated circuit according to a design rule
defined in accordance with a production process for producing
the integrated circuit to produce at least one mask pattern
for manufacturing the integrated circuit.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Chao et al. (Chao) 5,031,111 Jul. 09, 1991
Appeal No. 96-1413
Application 08/134,798
3
Shikata et al. (Shikata) 5,309,371 May 03,
1994
Claims 1 to 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Chao in view
of Shikata.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Generally for the reasons expressed by the examiner in
the answer, and for the additional reasons presented here, we
will sustain the prior art rejection of claims 1 to 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Inasmuch as no arguments are presented as to
any claim on appeal, and page 7 of the principal Brief on
appeal indicates that all claims stand or fall together, we
will consider only the features recited in representative
independent claim 1 on appeal.
We agree with the appellants’ and the examiner’s
assessment of Chao that this reference does not teach the
display and overlapping of the closed circuit object edges.
Appeal No. 96-1413
Application 08/134,798
4
On the other hand, we agree with the examiner’s assessment of
Shikata and the reasoning advanced at pages 4, 6 and 7 of the
answer as to why it would have been obvious for the artisan to
have utilized the teachings of Shikata in a combined structure
to arrive at the subject matter of representative claim 1 on
appeal.
Representative claim 1 recites in part that each closed
drawing object has two parts, an area representing the
electrical data and edges for overlapping respective edges of
other drawing objects. The language of representative claim 1
in dispute between the examiner and appellants is that
respective pairs of a plurality of the closed drawing objects
are connected “by overlapping the edges but not the areas of
the respective pairs.” For the most part appellants’
disclosure indicates that the overlapping of edges but not the
areas of respective pairs of closed drawing objects means
plainly what these words state. The disclosure also means and
appellants’ arguments in the brief and reply brief also
indicate that the overlapping of edges means no overlapping at
all, that is, that edges of pairs of closed drawing objects
abut each other, are contiguous or are tangential such that
Appeal No. 96-1413
Application 08/134,798
5
edges of adjacent pairs of closed drawing objects would touch
each other. The bottom of page 1 of the reply brief states
that the “entire thrust of the invention is the connection of
the closed drawing objects along edges, i.e., lines.”
Following this line of argument of appellants, it appears
that in appellants’ prior art Fig. 19(b) “the areas” of the
drawing objects do in fact overlap each other but only the
edges abut each other in prior art Fig. 19(a). Therefore, to
the extent argued, appellants’ claims would appear to read
upon their own prior art Fig. 19(a). In the same sense, Fig.
19(a) appears to be consistent with the bulk of appellants’
characterizations of the manner in which the connectivity is
achieved in Fig. 4. In each of the graphical depictions there
in the example of the connection portion of Fig. 4 for each of
the active circuit elements or closed drawing objects
depicted, other than the one for the resistor, the connection
is achieved by abutting, or contiguous or tangential edges
touching each other. Only in the resistor depiction at the
top of Fig. 4 is the characterization shown for both an
abutment of the resistor portion with the micro strip line on
the left with an apparent overlapping of the “area” portion of
Appeal No. 96-1413
Application 08/134,798
6
the micro strip line on the right. In this sense then,
appellants’ own disclosed invention appears to read upon and
be consistent with the disadvantages asserted to exist with
the area overlap of Fig. 19(b). In the same sense, the bulk
of appellants’ Fig. 4 other than the depiction for the
resistors appears to be consistent with appellants’
characterization of the prior art in Fig. 19(a).
With this understanding in mind, appellants’
characterization that Shikata overlaps the “area” of drawing
objects is misplaced. At the top of page 9 of the principal
Brief on appeal appellants characterize the figures 8 to 13 of
Shikata as including showings that some intersections of areas
of closed drawing objects representing circuit elements are
shown. By the use of the word “some” appellants impliedly
admit there is some showing of a tangential or edge only
connection in these figures, which is consistent with our view
of the same figures.
From our study of this reference, it appears to us that
the Fig. 7 showing in Shikata shows the overlapping of areas
in some cases as well as the tangential connectivity of
certain ones of the elements at the edges only. After the
Appeal No. 96-1413
Application 08/134,798
7
compaction procedures as taught in this reference the Fig. 8
showing would appear to indicate that there is an overlapping
of some edges only, no overlapping of areas, the absence of
any overlap at all and in some cases a tangential or edge
abutment connection. The shape altered version of Fig. 8 in
Fig. 9 does not show any overlapping areas, shows tangential
or abutting connected areas as well as some areas that are not
connected at all. The final aspect ratio adjusted depiction
for this first embodiment in Shikata’s Fig. 11 appears to us
to show the contiguity or abutment between the edges of closed
drawing figures, the absence of some of them touching at all
and a possible overlapping of edges between items 2 and 4, for
example. Similar assessments can be made with respect to
Figs. 19, 20, 24 and even Shikata’s assessment of the prior
art at Fig. 41.
With respect to the Fig. 15B flowchart, the determination
of whether any overlap exists at block 2140 is explained at
col. 13, lines 40 through 59 such that a predetermined value
of the overlap may equal zero. In this case, all of the
respective closed drawing objects would have no overlap at all
in their final version and would therefore abut or be
Appeal No. 96-1413
Application 08/134,798
8
tangentially connected with respect to objects adjacent other
drawing objects. There are compelling repetitive teachings in
Shikata’s specification against any overlap among the area
portion of the respective drawing objects, but according to
this formula at Fig. 15B some minor overlap may exist
according to the actual value the artisan would choose to
prescribe for the value of H . In this case, should it exist,1
there would be no overlapping of “areas” as we understand it
is intended in claim 1 and from appellants’ disclosure, but
only an overlap of edge portions or edge regions.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1 to 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Appeal No. 96-1413
Application 08/134,798
9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-1413
Application 08/134,798
10

LEYDIG, VOIT & MAYER
700 THIRTEENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 300
WASHINGTON, DC 20005