Appeal No. 1999-2690
Application 08/720,563
sense lines. In any case, Wilder, as pointed out by the Examiner
(Answer, page 7), provides a clear teaching of the resetting of
each selected pixel to a predetermined starting initial voltage
(Wilder, column 12, lines 60-62).
Similarly, Appellant’s argument that Wilder lacks a teaching
of independent control of the integration time of each row of the
cell array is not reflected in the language of appealed claim 4.
We also agree with the Examiner that, notwithstanding the lack of
any recitation in the claims directed to independent integration
time control, Wilder provides a clear disclosure of such a
feature at column 17, line 46 to column 18, line 32.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the
claimed limitations are present in the disclosure of Wilder, the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 4, as well as
dependent claims 5-8, not separately argued by Appellant, is
sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 based on Wilder, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims, and dependent
claims 2 and 3 not separately argued by Appellant, as well. In
asserting the patentability of claims 1 and 9, Appellant
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007