Ex parte HYNECEK et al. - Page 2




             Appeal No. 1998-1698                                                                                     
             Application No. 08/411,033                                                                               


                                                  BACKGROUND                                                          

             The appellants’ invention relates to a circuit and technique for smear subtraction in                    
             CCD image sensors.  The invention increases the charge capacity of the image sensing                     
             area during charge transfer to memory which allows the entire charge including the portion               
             due to smear to remain with the image charge so that it may be subtracted without                        
             eliminating a portion of the image charge.   An understanding of the invention can be                    
             derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below.                                  
                    1.     An image sensing device comprising:                                                        
                           an image sensing area having a lateral overflow antiblooming drain                         
                    structure; and                                                                                    
                           a frame memory area coupled to the image sensing area for storing                          
                    charge from the image sensing area, wherein during charge integration, the                        
                    antiblooming drain is biased at a first level, and during charge transfer to                      
                    memory, the antiblooming drain is biased at a second level such that the                          
                    image sensing area will have a higher charge capacity than during the                             
                    charge integration.                                                                               
                    The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                   
             appealed claims are:                                                                                     
             Hieda et al. (Hieda)                      4,782,394                   Nov.   1, 1988                     
             Stevens (Stevens ‘183)                    4,949,183                   Aug. 14, 1990                      
             Higashitsutsumi                           5,089,894                   Feb. 18, 1992                      
             Stevens et al. (Stevens ‘774)             5,130,774                   Jul.   14, 1992                    





                                                          2                                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007