Appeal No. 2001-2662
Application No. 09/124,962
OPINION
We reverse.
At the outset, we note that to the extent appellant attempts
at the top of page 5 of the brief to incorporate by reference
arguments and authorities set forth in the earlier filed brief,
37 CFR § 1.192(a) requires all arguments for our consideration be
presented in appellant’s brief filed on February 21, 2001.
As best set forth in summary fashion at page 4 of the reply
brief, we agree with appellant’s observation there that “Lim
neither expressly nor under the principles of inherency discloses
supplying at least a pair of internal circuits with at least a
pair of internal power supply voltages, one of which is a
reference voltage for producing the other, as claim 9 requires.”
When properly considered, this single statement sets forth the
thrust of two major arguments made by appellant in the brief and
reply brief, with which we generally agree as the basis of our
reversal.
Our study of the examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 10 on
appeal set forth in the initial statement of the rejection at
pages 3 and 4 of the answer leads us to conclude that the
examiner has, contrary to the assertions made, not set forth the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as Lim applies
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007