Appeal No. 1998-1698
Application No. 08/411,033
storage capacity of the imaging part 2 is increased during the integration period T , but the
2
language of claim 1 requires that the increase of capacity occurs due to “biasing” of the
lateral overflow antiblooming drain structure at a second level. While Hieda appears to
contain parts of the claimed invention, the examiner has not shown that the teachings from
the two embodiments can be integrated into a single system. (See answer at page 4.)
Moreover, the examiner has not shown why the skilled artisan would have been motivated
to vary the bias voltage to increase the capacity of the imaging area during charge transfer
to memory. Hieda discloses that there is a difference between the two embodiments at
column 10, line 9 through column 11, line 9. Hieda states:
[t]he first embodiment, as described above, is arranged in such a manner
that the anti-blooming means in the image pickup means is intermittently
operated during the integration period for accumulating unwanted charges
which are to be eliminated and are not used, and is continuously operated
during the substantial integration period for accumulating wanted charges.
The second preferred embodiment of the present invention will now be
described in connection with FIGS. 10 through 13. This second embodiment
is arranged in such a manner as to more efficiently eliminate the unwanted
charges during the unwanted charge integration period T .
2
The second embodiment is characterized in that the accumulation quantity of
the unwanted charges is limited in advance by reducing the maximum
possible accumulation quantity of the unwanted charges in the imaging part
2 of the CCD 1 (FIG. 1) during the unwanted charge integration period as
compared with that during the substantial integration period.
FIG. 10 shows a timing chart of driving pulses generated in the second
embodiment for limiting the maximum accumulation quantity of the charges
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007