Appeal No. 2002-0578
Application No. 09/190,055
transferring image generated electrical charges collected by said activated sensor
to said node, the voltage of the node changing from said first predetermined voltage to a
second voltage corresponding to the respective amount of transferred electrical charges;
and
generating an output signal by transferring charge from said node of said
activated sensor to an output transistor via a buried conductor having an interconnect
portion that extends over and is formed in contact with a field oxide region located
between said node and said output transistor.
PRIOR ART
The examiner relies on the following prior art:
Merrill 5,789,774 Aug. 4, 1998
Appellant’s admission in the “Discussion of Related Art” section of the specification, pages 1-15
(hereinafter referred to as “the admitted prior art”).
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 11-13, 17-21, 24, 26-36, 40-45, 47, 48, 51-53, 57-61, 65-67, 99 and 100
under 35 U.S.C. §102 as unpatentable over the admitted prior art.
2) Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §102 as unpatentable over Merrill.
3) Claims 1, 2, 4-71, 99 and 100 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over the combined
teachings of the admitted prior art and Merrill.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and prior art, including the
arguments presented by both the examiner and the appellant in support of their respective
positions. This review has led us to conclude that the examiner’s Sections 102 and 103
rejections are not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s Sections 102 and 103
rejections for substantially the reasons expressed in the Brief and the Reply Brief. We add the
following primarily for emphasis.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007