Ex parte SEKIGUCHI - Page 7

            Appeal No. 95-4788                                                                                                     
            Application 07/996,393                                                                                                 

            motivation in the references to do so.  See In re Mills, 916 F.2d 680, 682, 16 USPQ2d 1430, 1432                       
            (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("While Mathis' apparatus may be capable of being modified to run the way Mills'                      
            apparatus is claimed, there must be a suggestion or motivation in the reference to do so.");                           
            In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("The mere fact that                             
            the prior art could be so modified would not have made the modification obvious unless the prior                       
            art suggested the desirability of the modification.').  We see no such suggestion in the admitted                      
            prior art or Howard.                                                                                                   
                    The fact that Howard discloses structure producing two voltage levels does not suggest                         
            using different voltage levels for sweeping and for transferring.  The two voltage levels in Howard                    
            are used to compensate for crosstalk in a TFT/LCD, not to reduce power and heat in a solid state                       
            charge coupled device (CCD).  We fail to see the motivation for using the two voltage levels in                        
            Howard for a completely different purpose in the admitted prior art.  The examiner attempts to                         
            show that CCDs are analogous to TFT/LCDs because both use capacitive cells arranged in an x-y                          
            matrix (Examiner's Answer, pages 8-10 and 14).  Assuming there are analogies that can be drawn,                        
            we do not see how Howard's technique of applying the data signal (one voltage) to one of the data                      
            lines when the gating signal is applied and applying the crosstalk compensation signal (the second                     
            voltage) when the gating signal is not applied suggests the claimed operation of applying one                          
            voltage during a sequence of sweeping clock pulses and applying another voltage during a                               
            sequence of transferring clock pulses.  Howard does not involve sweeping away residual charges.                        
            We agree with appellant's argument that "[t]here is no teaching in Howard of a control means for                       

                                                          - 7 -                                                                    

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007