Appeal No. 2001-2662
Application No. 09/124,962
Our study of Lim leads us to note in passing the disclosure
set forth in figure 5, even though the examiner does not rely
upon this figure as a basis to reject the claims on appeal. The
artisan may well consider this figure to be more appropriate to
the claimed invention since it appears in some respects to be
more like the disclosed invention set forth in specification
figure 10, which in turn has been derived from specification
prior art figures 11 and 12. Appellant’s solution to the problem
set forth in the disclosure as to the prior art approaches in
these figures is to provide a common reference voltage in
specification figure 10, which feature is also provided in figure
5 of Lim. In contrast to the approach followed in specification
figure 10 and set forth in the comparator clause of claim 9,
essentially this common reference voltage feeds two separate
internal power supply subcircuits in parallel to yield two output
voltages VINIB and VINT_A. The discussion of this figure at
column 4 beginning at line 29 of Lim plainly teaches that this
figure provides separate internal power supplies for a pair of
internal power supply circuits as set forth at the end of claim
9 on appeal. On the other hand, the comparator clause of claim
9 is not met by the teachings and showings in this figure since
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007