Appeal No. 2001-2662
Application No. 09/124,962
to them, but rather a strained reading of the reference on the
features of the claims. The examiner’s correlations appear to us
to be rather force fed and not reasonable to the artisan. We
generally agree with appellant’s observations at page 3 of the
reply brief that neither the voltage V1 nor the voltage at the
node between Resistor R3 and R4 is a power supply voltage in
Lim’s figure 2. R3 and R4 would be readily recognized by the
artisan as together providing a voltage dividing function. As
such, the resistor R4 cannot be considered as a separate unit for
performing a predetermined operation as asserted by the examiner.
These conclusions are buttressed by our consideration of
Lim’s prior art figures 1 and 2 together with their corresponding
description at column 1 of this reference. A study of the
teachings associated there with both figures 1 and 2 clearly
indicates that Lim sees as part of the prior art to him internal
power supply conversion circuits separately shown and described
in each respective figure but which each supply only a single
internal power supply voltage VINT.
Thus, in the context of the electronic device associated
with these figures, which is clearly indicated to be a
semiconductor memory element, the relied upon figure 2 showing
does not provide a first internal circuit coupled to receive a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007