Appeal No. 1997-3936
Application No. 08/449,409
"It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231
USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986); See also Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik [GMBH] v. American Hoist and Derrick [Co.],
730 F.2d 1452, 1457, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Claim 9 recites a method "for providing a plurality of
substrate bias voltage levels" and includes a step of
"generating a plurality of substrate bias voltage levels" by
the substrate charge pump. The examiner, in rejecting claim
9, refers to the circuit disclosed by Alvarez and asserts
(Answer, page 4) that "the recited method can be accomplished
by the ... circuit to Alvarez et al." However, nowhere does
the examiner point to any discussion in Alvarez of generating
substrate bias voltages, and we find no such disclosure.
Thus, since Alvarez lacks the step of generating a plurality
of substrate bias voltage levels, Alvarez cannot anticipate
claim 9 or its dependents, claims 10 through 12.
As to claims 1 and 13, claim 1 recites in the preamble, a
VBB voltage generator unit "for biasing of the semiconductor
chip substrate" and claim 13 recites a charge pump circuit
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007