Ex parte SEKIGUCHI - Page 8

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

            controlling the amplification factor of the driver so as to produce a smaller amplitude of the clock                   
            pulses used to sweep the residual charges than for the clock pulses used to transfer the charge                        
            signals specified in claim 3" (Brief, page 9).  The examiner's reasoning that "it would have been                      
            obvious . . . to control the variations in the prior art clock pulse voltages in accordance with the                   
            dual-voltage control means disclosed in Howard et al. in order to provide different clock voltages                     
            for the respective sweep and transfer functions of a solid state imaging device so that more control                   
            could be exercised over minimizing the thermal noise generated by these pulses" (Examiner's                            
            Answer, page 5) does not provide any factual support for the reasoning that one skilled in the art                     
            would have sought to minimize the thermal noise by controlling the amplitude of the clock pulses.                      
                    For the reasons stated above, the rejection of claims 3-5 is reversed.                                         

                                   ERROL A. KRASS                                )                                                 
                                   Administrative         Patent Judge )                                                           
                                                                                 )  BOARD OF PATENT                                
                                   LEE E. BARRETT                 )     APPEALS                                                    
                                   Administrative Patent Judge )       AND                                                         
                                                                                 )   INTERFERENCES                                 
                                                          - 8 -                                                                    

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007