Appeal No. 2002-0501 Page 6
Application No. 08/556,427
teachings from the prior art itself would . . . have suggested the claimed subject matter
to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, the column of Matsuda cited by the examiner discloses "a second
embodiment of the [reference's] invention according to its second aspect. This
embodiment device comprises a drain 201 and a connecting channel 203 in addition to
the arrangement of the first embodiment as shown in FIG. 1." Col. 8, ll. 16-20.
Although the drain and channel are used to drain unnecessary signal charges, we are
not persuaded that Matsuda drains only the portion of the unnecessary charges that
exceeds the usual, proper, or specified amount. To the contrary, the reference appears
to drain all unnecessary charges. Specifically, "[i]n this second embodiment, as shown
in FIG. 7, in obtaining a narrow aspect ratio image, unnecessary charges remaining
in the first horizontal CCD 3 are discharged via the drain 201 when the charges are
transferred from the first horizontal CCD 3 to the second horizontal CCD 5." Id.
at ll. 38-42 (emphasis added). "Accordingly, . . . charges unnecessary for a narrow
aspect ratio image are prevented from remaining in the first horizontal CCD 3,
allowing a narrow aspect ratio image to be obtained." Id. at ll. 46-51 (emphasis added).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007