Appeal No. 2003-0089
Application No. 08/976,474
when the photodiode is precharged. In fact, the Examiner has
incorrectly identified clocks M1 and M2 as control signals for
transfer of charge which cause the clamping circuit to remain off
until a certain voltage (9V) is reached. These clock signals are
actually two-phase clock pulses applied to the transfer gate
circuits (col. 3, lines 65-67) and have nothing to do with
disabling of clamping circuit 21. Additionally, the Examiner’s
reference to the potential on the vertical scanning line or the
photodiode that causes clamping circuit 21 be placed in its
conductive or non-conductive state, falls short of the claimed
“disabling of the spillover protection device while the
predetermined bias charge is injected on the photodiode.” In
that regard, as argued by Appellants (brief, pages 7 & 8 and oral
hearing), the clamping circuit of Ohba plays no role during the
charge injection on the photodiode and affords no need to be
disabled. Accordingly, because the claimed disabling of the
spillover protection device is not taught by Ohba, the prior art
does not anticipate the claims and the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection
of claims 1-6 cannot be sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007