Appeal No. 1998-0740
Application 08/627,838
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented
by both the examiner and the appellant, we have concluded that the
rejection should not be sustained. We agree with appellant that
there is no teaching or motivation to combine Nakajima and Nagai.
The examiner has provided no explanation in support of his
position that the combination would have in fact resulted in an
improved high speed video camera, nor is it explained why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine
the teachings to achieve an improved high speed camera.
We further note that the examiner has not shown that any of
the aforementioned signals E1-E4 of Nagai are utilized to alter
charge accumulation time (exposure) of photoelectric elements 7 by
increments having variable length. Column 7, lines 53-68, of
Nagai indicates that the photoelectric elements are charged at
regular intervals, such as 1/1000 of a second, between read pulses
36 and 37. Such being the case, there appears to be no teaching,
motivation or suggestion to utilize signals E1-E4 as clock signals
in Nakajima to alter charge accumulation time.
Even though we will not sustain the rejection of the claims
before us, we do agree with the examiner that Nagai’s signals E1-
E4 have a constant number of transitions for a given period of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007