Appeal No. 1999-2794
Application No. 08/597,035
image sensor 27 (Nakajima, Fig. 2) receives light from valid image areas, but not from
invalid image areas.
Appellant argues (Brief at 13-14) that image sensor 27 is not shaded or "blocked"
from the invalid areas. In particular, appellant quotes a section of Nakajima (Reply Brief at
3) that is deemed to disclose that no blocking of light occurs.
Our interpretation of the reference is in accord with appellant's. Nakajima, at least
at column 6, lines 8 through 15, clearly indicates that image sensor 27 receives light from
the invalid image areas. Moreover, the examiner has not pointed out any structure in
Nakajima that might perform the function of "blocking a first plurality of photosensitive
elements from among said plurality of photosensitive elements," as required by instant
claim 7. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claim 7, nor the rejection of claims 8
and 10, depending from 7. We cannot sustain the rejection of the claims for the additional
reason that we conclude that the basic combination of the APA and Hosokawa is not well
founded, as previously noted herein.
The requirements of instant independent claim 9 include "sequentially outputting a
first subplurality of charges from among said plurality of charges from said shift register
one by one," and "forcibly erasing a second subplurality of charges from among said
plurality of charges remaining in said shift register." The examiner puts forth the position
that Nakajima inherently must have a "reset means" for efficient operation. (See, e.g.,
Answer at 14.) Appellant contests the examiner's finding of inherency (Brief at 15).
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007