Ex Parte Martin - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2005-0215                                                        
          Application No. 09/666,301                                                  

               Claim 7 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it               
          reads as follows:                                                           
                    7.  A circuit for varying the integration time of                 
               moving charges from a photodetector comprising:                        
                    a first charge well for receiving moving charges from a           
               photodetector;                                                         
                    at least one additional charge well; and                          
                    means for selectively switching the at least one                  
               additional charge well in parallel with the first charge               
               well to vary the integration time of the moving charges,               
               based on a rate at which the moving charges fill the first             
               charge well.                                                           
               No references were relied on by the examiner.                          
               Claims 7, 9 and 10 stand rejected under the first paragraph            
          of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of written description.                         
               Claims 7, 9 and 10 stand rejected under the first paragraph            
          of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of enablement.                                  
               Reference is made to the supplemental brief, the reply brief           
          and the answer for the respective positions of the appellant and            
          the examiner.                                                               
                                       OPINION                                        
               We have carefully considered the entire record before us,              
          and we will reverse the lack of written description and the lack            
          of enablement rejections of claims 7, 9 and 10.                             

                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007