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.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007