Appeal No. 2003-0312
Application No. 08/871,199 Page 10
to read Fouilloy on the claimed threshold operations defined in
claim 61, the examiner attempts to apply Fouilloy by taking the
position (answer, page 4) that “[w]hen the height has value V0
(predetermined threshold), all the charges contained in the
circuit Di flow into the drain, it clearly includes the charges
below V0 (discard radiation hits on the pixel detector below a
predetermined threshold, column 3, lines 4-45).” We agree with
the examiner that during dazzling of the detector, the height of
the barrier is set at V0, and that charges below V0 are
discarded, as all charges on Di, both above and below V0 are
discarded. However, we do not agree with the examiner (answer,
pages 4 and 5) that “Fouilloy et al. also discloses when the
height has value V1, only the charges such that the potential of
the circuit Di exceeds V1 are collected by the drain (column 3,
lines 10-15). It clearly [sic] that charges below V1 are
accumulated in integration circuit. Fouilloy et al. discloses
that V0 is smaller than V1 (column 3, lines 37-39). Therefore,
charges above V0 are accumulated in integration circuit
(accumulate charges above the predetermined threshold).” We find
that during normal operation of the device, the threshold is V1,
and charges below the threshold V1 are accumulated, not
discarded, as required by claim 61. We additionally find that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007