Appeal No. 1999-2690
Application 08/720,563
that, even assuming arguendo that the language of claim 4 could
be construed as calling for simultaneous cell read out, there is
nothing in the claim language which precludes the simultaneous
read out by merging or combining pixel values.
We are in further agreement with the Examiner (Answer,
page 6) that Appellant’s arguments ignore various portions of the
disclosure of Wilder which clearly teaches the invention as
claimed. While Wilder suggests an embodiment in which groups of
pixel values are read by merging signals into a single superpixel
value, other embodiments are also suggested in Wilder. At column
6, lines 4-64, Wilder discloses various read out techniques
dependent on desired resolution including one cell at a time,
more than one element per row at a time, and more than one
element per column at a time.
We also find to be unpersuasive Appellant’s further
contention that Wilder, which allegedly discloses only the
resetting of all of the horizontal sense lines, lacks a teaching
of circuitry which permits the resetting of each cell array line
independently as claimed. As with Appellant’s earlier argument
related to simultaneous cell read out, however, we find no
language in the claims which require the independent resetting of
sensor cells or any language which precludes the resetting of all
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007