Appeal No. 1998-1698
Application No. 08/411,033
intermittently, i.e., during each horizontal blanking period HBLK, (which is the low level
period of a horizontal blanking pulse HBLK shown in FIG. 7) so as to reduce the quantity of
charge to be accumulated during the period T .
2
The examiner relies upon Stevens ‘774 to teach the use of a lateral overflow drain
antiblooming structure and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to include this into the system of Hieda. (See answer at pages
4-5.) Appellants argue that Stevens ‘774 does not disclose or suggest the change of the
charge capacity of the image sensing area because the lateral overflow drain and the
image sensing area are controlled by the same gate. (See brief at pages 6-7.) We agree
with appellants that Stevens ‘774 is silent with respect to any control of the capacity of the
imaging area.
From our review of Steven ‘774, we find that Stevens ‘774 merely teaches the
structure of a lateral overflow drain and reduction of cross talk. Since Hieda does not
clearly disclose the control of charge capacity by varying a bias voltage to increase the
capacity during the charge transfer to memory and Stevens ‘774 does not remedy the
deficiency in Hieda, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-
8. Independent claim 9 contains similar limitations which the combination of Hieda and
Stevens ‘774 do not teach or suggest. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007