Appeal No. 1997-3792
Application No. 08/321,334
performed by the operator, not by the disclosed apparatus.
As the examiner has not explained how the foregoing
deficiency with respect to claim 1 is remedied by Perry, the
§ 103 rejection of claims 5 and 7-10, which depend on claim 1,
based on Kenny in view of Perry is also reversed.
F. The examiner's § 102 and § 103 rejections of claims 11-13
Claim 11, rejected for anticipation by Lin, recites
"means for varying a magnitude of a supply voltage fed to the
microprocessor in accordance with the temperature of the
microprocessor and the operating frequency of the
microprocessor." Comparing this claim to appellants'
disclosure, raising the supply voltage in response to
temperature corresponds to steps 82-88 and 90-92 of Figs. 5A
and 5B, while control of the supply voltage in response to
frequency is depicted by steps 92, 94, and 96 of Figure 6.
In our view, the claim when given its broadest reasonable
construction requires that the supply voltage be varied in
response to the temperature (actual or expected) and the
operating frequency, which does not occur in Lin. Lin reduces
power consumption by turning on and off the functional units
of the microelectronic device in accordance with the
- 13 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007