Appeal No. 2003-0312
Application No. 08/871,199 Page 11
during normal operation, there is no threshold V0. Although the
reference accumulates all charges below V1, including charges
between zero and V0 and between V0 and less that V1, there is no
threshold V0 during the normal operation. This is where the
examiner's analysis fails. Because there is no threshold V0
during normal operation, there is no accumulation of charge above
a set threshold during normal operation. Thus, we find that the
examiner's analysis does not meet the claimed threshold operation
set forth in claim 61. Accordingly, we agree with appellants
(brief, pages 6 and 7) that:
During normal operation, when the camera of
Fouilloy is not being dazzled or jammed, the
camera will not discard charges below V).
Instead, it will accumulate all charges below
V0 and above V0 up to V1. Thus, Fouilloy,
during normal operation, will not discard
radiation hits below a predetermined energy
threshold as required by claim 61 of the
application, and in fact will accumulate
charges below the Examiner’s asserted
threshold V0. Second, when the camera of
Fouilloy is dazzled or jammed, it will dump
all charges, including those both above and
below V0. Thus when the camera is dazzled
or jammed, it will not accumulate charges
above the Examiner’s asserted predetermined
energy threshold of Vo as required by claim
61 of the application, and in fact will
discard charges above the Examiner’s asserted
threshold V0. In summary, Fouilloy’s potential
barrier Ei having a value of V0 does not act as
a predetermined energy threshold below which
charges are dropped and above which charges
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007