Appeal No. 1997-3446
Application No. 08/373,237
during illumination, said drainage device including a
potential well having a continuously varying depth.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Iizuka 5,182,622 Jan. 26, 1993
Miwada (EP) 0 457 192 Nov. 21, 1991
Claims 6 through 8, 10 and 13 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Miwada. Claim 9 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Miwada in
view of Iizuka.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
At the outset, we note that the examiner has set forth
the teachings of Miwada at pages 4-5 of the answer but while
the examiner has pointed out the various p- and n- type doped
regions and gate and transfer gate electrodes of Miwada, the
examiner never correlates these teachings to the elements of
the instant claims. Thus, the examiner’s rationale presents
no prima facie case of anticipation.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007