Ex Parte Baumgartner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 3, 2016

12393779 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/393,779 0212612009
134131 7590 02/05/2016
SCULLY, SCOTT, MURPHY & PRESSER, P.C.
400 Garden City Plaza, Suite 300
Garden city, NY 11530
Jason R. Baumgartner
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.
AUS920090009US1(32632) 1360
EXAMINER
LIN,ARIC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2851
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/05/2016 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):
GLOBALFOUNDRIESPAIRENotify@ssmp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JASON R. BAUMGARTNER, PAUL ROESSLER,
OHAD SHACHAM, and JIAZHAO XU1
Appeal2014-004539
Application 12/393,779
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, GEORGE C. BEST, and JULIA HEANEY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 10 and 17-19 as anticipated
by Abraham et al. (US 2005/0193304 Al, published Sept. 1, 2005) and
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 11-16 as unpatentable over Abraham in
view ofKurshan et al. (US 6,311,293 Bl, issued Oct. 30, 2001). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
1 International Business Machines Corporation is identified as the real party
in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-004539
Application 12/393,779
Appellants claim a method of performing liveness checking of an
integrated circuit logic design which comprises the steps of attempting to
prove that a liveness gate cannot remain asserted for a bound 'k' that
corresponds to a number of time-steps in a first trace and attempting to prove
that a first state of the first trace can be repeated during a second trace while
the liveness gate remains asserted (sole independent claim 10). The method
also may include the steps of attempting to prove that the liveness gate
cannot remain asserted for the bound 'k' that corresponds to the number of
time-steps in a third trace and attempting to prove that a second state of the
third trace can be repeated during a fourth trace while the liveness gate
remains asserted (dependent claim 11 ).
A copy of representative claims 10 and 11, taken from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below.
10. A method of performing liveness checking of an
integrated circuit logic design embodied in a netlist as set forth
by instructions executed by a computer system, comprising:
attempting, by one or more instructions executed in the
computer system, to prove that a liveness gate cannot remain
asserted for a bound 'k' that corresponds to a number of time-
steps in a first trace;
returning as an output of the computer system, when the
liveness gate does not remain asserted for the bound 'k', an
unbounded proof of correctness;
attempting by one or more instructions executed in the
computer system, when the liveness gate remains asserted for
the bound 'k', to prove that a first state of the first trace can be
repeated during a second trace while the liveness gate remains
asserted; and
returning as an output of the computer system, when the
first state is repeated during the second trace and the liveness
gate remains asserted, a concatenated trace that corresponds to
2
Appeal2014-004539
Application 12/393,779
an unbounded failure, the concatenated trace including the first
and second traces.
11. The method of claim 10, further comprising:
attempting by one or more instructions executed in the
computer system, when the first state is not repeated during the
second trace and the liveness gate remains asserted, to prove
that the liveness gate cannot remain asserted for the bound 'k'
that corresponds to the number of time-steps in a third trace;
returning as an output of the computer system, when the
liveness gate does not remain asserted for the bound 'k', an
unbounded proof of correctness;
attempting, by one or more instructions executed in the
computer system, to prove that a second state of the third trace
can be repeated during a fourth trace while the liveness gate
remains asserted; and
returning as an output of the computer system, when the
second state is repeated during the fourth trace and the liveness
gate remains asserted, a concatenated trace that corresponds to
an unbounded failure, the concatenated trace including the third
and fourth traces.
Appellants present arguments specifically directed to claims 10 and
11 only (Br. 3---6). Therefore, the remaining claims under rejection will
stand or fall in accordance with their dependency from claims 10 and 11.
We sustain the above rejections based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments well expressed by the
Examiner in the Answer. The following comments are added for emphasis
only.
Appellants argue that Abraham does not disclose a number of features
recited in claim 10 (Br. 5) and that Kurshan alone or in combination with
3
Appeal2014-004539
Application 12/393,779
Abraham contains no teaching or suggestion of using third and fourth traces
as recited in claim 11 (id. at 6).
As thoroughly explained in the Answer, Appellants' arguments are
not persuasive and, in some cases, are actually contradicted by Appellants'
concessions regarding the disclosures of these references (Ans. 6-14). The
Examiner correctly determines that, while the reference disclosures do not
use the same terminology as used in the claims, Abraham anticipatorily
discloses the features of claim 10, and the combination of Abraham and
Kurshan would have suggested the features of claim 11 (id.). We emphasize
that Appellants do not challenge any of the findings or determinations made
by the Examiner in the "Response to Argument" section of the Answer (i.e.,
no Reply Brief has been filed).
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)
AFFIRivIED
4