Appeal No. 1999-2691
Application No. 08/590,348
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Hasegawa et al. (Hasegawa) 4,691,114 Sept. 1, 1987
Hasegawa et al. (Hasegawa) 4,891,690 Jan. 2, 1990
Hirota 5,132,788 July 21, 1992
Higashitsutsumi 5,144,445 Sept. 1, 1992
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hasegawa ‘690.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hirota in view of Higashitsutsumi.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hirota in view of Higashitsutsumi and
Hasegawa ‘114.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 15 and 17) and
the answer (paper number 16) for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and
we will sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 7, and we
will reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 4 through
6.
Turning first as we must to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
of claim 7, the examiner indicates (answer, page 4) that Hasegawa
‘690 discloses (Figure 13) an image sensor 21, a sample-and-hold
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007