Appeal No. 2003-0089
Application No. 08/976,474
compared to that of the charge injection and state that there is
no reason for disabling the clamping circuit during the charge
injection (brief, page 8 and reply brief, page 3).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts
that “the clamping circuit (21) remains in an inoperable state
until a certain voltage (9V) is reached” and therefore, does not
perform the spillover protection function (answer, pages 5 & 6).
The Examiner further characterizes clocks M1 and M2 as control
signals for transfer of charge and asserts that they cause the
clamping circuit to remain off until a certain voltage level is
applied (answer, page 6).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
the four corners of a single prior art document describe every
element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice
the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947
(Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
After reviewing Ohba, we agree with Appellants’ assertion
that the reference includes no teaching or suggestion related to
disabling the clamping circuit during the charge injection on the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007