Ex Parte YAMASAKI - Page 5




          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