Appeal No. 2001-2662 Application No. 09/124,962 first internal power supply voltage as an operating power supply voltage for performing a predetermined operation, as well as a second internal circuit coupled to receive the voltage on a second internal power supply line as an operating voltage for performing another predetermined operation as set forth in the last two clauses of claim 9 on appeal. The artisan clearly would not consider the voltage V1 as a separate operating voltage in the context of the discussion at column 1 of this reference describing Lim’s prior art figure 2. Even though the examiner’s views with respect to figure 2 and voltage V1 would appear to meet the language of the comparator clause of claim 9, which clause reads “a comparator for comparing a voltage on a second internal power supply line with said first internal power supply voltage and outputting a signal indicating a result of the comparison,” the subject matter of each feature recited in claim 9 on appeal clearly would not have been anticipated within 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Lim’s prior art figure 2. As such, the rejection of dependent claim 10 must also be reversed as well. 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007