Appeal No. 1998-3135 Page 11
Application No. 08/789,519
§ 103, the sole issue, as indirectly advanced in the brief,
and further expounded upon by appellants’ counsel during the
oral hearing, is whether the clause “wherein said floating
diffusion region is connected only to the output gate, said
first precharge gate and an output terminal” (underlining
added). The appellants assert (brief, page 5) that Itoh
“employs a much different structure for accomplishing
adjustment.” The appellants further assert (brief, page 6)
that “[t]he connection of three gates to the floating
diffusion region instead of two gates increase the effective
capacitance and prevents the arrangement from attaining the
highest possible sensitivity. . . . Although the examiner
has asserted that the elimination of elements would have been
obvious, applicants have shown that improved results can be
achieved by eliminating certain structures.” The examiner’s
position (answer, pages 4 and 5) is that “[o]nly diffusion
region 203 is directly adjacent to the floating diffusion 205
[sic: 202].”
We note at the outset that the claim term “only” defines
a structural limitation that must be considered when
interpreting the claim. In the appellants’ invention
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007