Appeal No. 1998-1698
Application No. 08/411,033
pertinent art would have been led to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley, 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.
1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988). These showings by the examiner are an
essential part of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). Furthermore, "[o]bviousness may not be established using hindsight or in view
of the teachings or suggestions of the inventor." Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS
Importers Int'l Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), citing
W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ
303, 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
While appellants’ arguments are quite brief and generally address the references
and the language of claims 1 and 9, appellants argue that neither Hieda nor Stevens ‘774
teaches biasing the lateral overflow antiblooming drain at two different voltages to increase
the capacity of the image sensing area during charge transfer to memory. (See brief at
page 6.) We agree with appellants.
The examiner relies upon Hieda (answer at page 4) for a teaching that two voltages
are used in the accumulation and elimination of unwanted charge. Furthermore, we note
that the examiner relies upon multiple embodiments of Hieda in the rejection to reconstruct
appellants’ claimed invention. The examiner maintains that Hieda discloses that the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007