Ex Parte Yamasaki

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 4, 2003

09124962 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 4, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte KYOJI YAMASAKI
_____________
Appeal No. 2001-2662
Application No. 09/124,962
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, KRASS, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 9 and 10. The examiner has indicated
the allowability of claims 1-8.
Claim 9 is reproduced below:
9. A semiconductor integrated circuit device
comprising:
an internal power supply circuit for generating a first
internal power supply voltage being lower than an external
power supply voltage on a first internal power supply line
from said external power supply voltage;
Appeal No. 2001-2662
Application No. 09/124,962
1At page 2 of the answer, the examiner has withdrawn a
separate rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
2
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;
a current drive element connected between a power
supply node receiving said external power supply voltage and
said second internal power supply line for supplying a
current from said power supply node onto said second
internal power supply line in accordance with said signal
outputted from said comparator;
a first internal circuit coupled to receive the first
internal power supply voltage as an operating power supply
voltage thereof, for performing a predetermined operation;
and
a second internal circuit coupled to receive the
voltage on the second internal power supply line as an
operating power supply voltage thereof, for performing
another predetermined operation.
The following reference is relied on by the examiner:
Lim et al. (Lim) 5,929,696 Jul. 27, 1999
(filed Oct. 17, 1997)
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Lim.1
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the supplemental brief filed on
February 21, 2001 and the reply brief, as well as the answer.
Appeal No. 2001-2662
Application No. 09/124,962
3
OPINION
We reverse.
At the outset, we note that to the extent appellant attempts
at the top of page 5 of the brief to incorporate by reference
arguments and authorities set forth in the earlier filed brief,
37 CFR § 1.192(a) requires all arguments for our consideration be
presented in appellant’s brief filed on February 21, 2001.
As best set forth in summary fashion at page 4 of the reply
brief, we agree with appellant’s observation there that “Lim
neither expressly nor under the principles of inherency discloses
supplying at least a pair of internal circuits with at least a
pair of internal power supply voltages, one of which is a
reference voltage for producing the other, as claim 9 requires.”
When properly considered, this single statement sets forth the
thrust of two major arguments made by appellant in the brief and
reply brief, with which we generally agree as the basis of our
reversal.
Our study of the examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 10 on
appeal set forth in the initial statement of the rejection at
pages 3 and 4 of the answer leads us to conclude that the
examiner has, contrary to the assertions made, not set forth the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as Lim applies
Appeal No. 2001-2662
Application No. 09/124,962
4
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
Appeal No. 2001-2662
Application No. 09/124,962
5
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.
Appeal No. 2001-2662
Application No. 09/124,962
6
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
Appeal No. 2001-2662
Application No. 09/124,962
7
the claim essentially requires that one of the internal power
supply voltages is in turn a reference voltage for producing the
other internal power supply voltage as argued by appellant in the
brief and reply brief. The overall circuit shown in figure
5 does not meet this limitation since a common reference voltage
VREF feeds in parallel both the top and bottom subcircuit
elements in figure 5.
Appeal No. 2001-2662
Application No. 09/124,962
8
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JDT/hh
Appeal No. 2001-2662
Application No. 09/124,962
9
MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY
600 13TH STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3096