Ex Parte Blanquart

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 17, 2019

14214794 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/214,794 03/15/2014 Laurent Blanquart
112802 7590 05/21/2019
TechLaw Ventures, PLLC
3290 West Mayflower Ave.
Lehi, UT 84043
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
OMC-0010.NP 7724
EXAMINER
BILLAH, MASUM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/21/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
terrence.edwards@techlawventures.com
docket@techlawventures.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LAURENT BLANQUART
Appeal2018-008081
Application 14/214,794 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and
IFTIKHAR AHMED, Administrative Patent Judges.
AHMED, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-10 and 12-36, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates "generally to minimizing the area and reducing
the number of inputs and outputs of an image sensor for use in an
endoscopic device." Spec. ,r 4.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is DePuy Synthes
Products, Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-008081
Application 14/214, 794
Illustrative Claims
Claims 1 and 2 are illustrative and reproduced below with certain
limitations at issue emphasized:
1. An endoscopic device comprising:
A CMOS image sensor having an area sufficient to be
located near a tip of a distal end of the endoscopic device;
a plurality of on-chip registers for configuring the image
sensor operation;
and a plurality of bidirectional pads,
wherein the image sensor is configured to control
each of the plurality of bidirectional pads to have an output
state and an input state for sending and receiving data;
wherein the image sensor automatically switches
between the output state and the input state for the
bidirectional pads;
wherein when the bidirectional pads are in the
output state image data is output from the image sensor
during a rolling-readout time frame and wherein when the
bidirectional pads are in the input state they receive control
commands for the operation of the image sensor for
providing to the on-chip registers.
2. The endoscopic device of claim 1, wherein the images sensor
is configured to operate based on a frame period, wherein the
frame period is divided into states comprising:
a rolling-readout state during which image data is output
through the bidirectional pads,
a service-line state during which non-image data is output
through the bidirectional pads, and
a configuration state during which the instruction data is
received by the image sensor through the bidirectional
pads.
2
Appeal2018-008081
Application 14/214, 794
Rejections
Claims 1-10, 12-15, 18-21, 23-25, and 30-36 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over the combination of Banik (US
2012/0071720 Al; Mar. 22, 2012) and Dai (US 2013/0264465 Al; Oct. 10,
2013). 2 Final Act. 4.
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious
over the combination of Banik, Dai, and Recker (US 2011/0121654 A 1;
May 26, 2011 ). Final Act. 19.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over the
combination of Banik, Dai, and Hsu (US 2010/0315333 Al; Dec. 16, 2010).
Final Act. 21.
Claims 26-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over
the combination of Banik, Dai, and Cunningham (US 2001/0016804 Al;
Aug. 23, 2001). Final Act. 22.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in concluding that Dai teaches or suggests "the
frame period is divided into states comprising: a rolling-readout state
during which image data is output through the bidirectional pads, a service-
line state during which non-image data is output through the bidirectional
pads, and a configuration state during which the instruction data is received
by the image sensor through the bidirectional pads," as recited in claim 2?
2 Although the Examiner lists claim 11 as rejected, that claim has been
cancelled. Appeal Br. 20.
3
Appeal2018-008081
Application 14/214, 794
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 9, 10, and 12-29
Appellant explains:
[Appellant] filed an after final response with amendment seeking
to move the subject matter from [dependent] claims 2 and 30 into
their respective independent claims 1 and 9. [Appellant's] after
final amendments were not entered by the Office because,
according to the Advisory Action, the amendments raise new
issues that would require further consideration and/ or search.
App. Br. 5; see also Response to Final Office Action (May 8, 2017);
Advisory Action (May 16, 2017); Advisory Action (July 21, 2017).
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant only substantively argues claims 2 and
30 and their dependent claims. See App. Br. 8-17. Appellant does not
separately challenge independent claims 1 and 9 or any dependent claims
which do not depend from claim 2 or 30 (namely, claims 10 and 12-29).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 9, 10,
and 12-29.
Claims 2---8 and 30---36
Claims 2 and 3 0 depend from independent claims 1 and 9
respectively, and recite a "frame period [that] is divided into states,
comprising: a rolling-readout state during which image data is output
through the bidirectional pads, a service-line state during which non-image
data is output through the bidirectional pads, and a configuration state
during which the instruction data is received by the image sensor through the
bidirectional pads."
The Examiner finds that Dai teaches this limitation because it "teaches
[a] data pad [that] is a bidirectional terminal that receives digital control
4
Appeal2018-008081
Application 14/214, 794
signals, transmits digital control signals, and transmits analog image data
signals" "between the image sensor 300 and the external circuit." Ans. 8
(citing Dai ,r 34) (emphases omitted). The Examiner further finds that Dai
teaches a "frame period which is divided into different states" for each of the
transmissions through the bidirectional terminal. Id. at 13 (citing Dai ,r 34).
With regard to the "rolling-readout state" limitation, the Examiner
finds that "Dai teaches [a] similar rolling-readout state for generating [an]
image signal," because Dai's data pad 320 is used to "transfer[] analog
image data signal UDATA from image sensor 300 to an external circuit
(e.g., host controller)." Id. at 9 (citing Dai ,r 34) (emphasis omitted). The
Examiner explains, with reference to Figure 5 of Dai, that "each column or
row is read out in a readout phase," "where a series of readout phases
includes image data of a complete image acquired by the image sensor." Id.
at 10 (citing Dai ,r 43).
With regard to the "service-line state" limitation, the Examiner finds
that Dai teaches non-image data output from the image sensor to the host
during a service-line state, and that examples of such digital control signals
include "command signals UCMD sent to the host, and header information"
or other information, such as "red color, green color, blue color, row
information, frame information, gain information, global shutter timing, and
reset timing." Id. at 10-11 (citing Dai ,r 34) (emphases omitted); id. at 15.
With regard to the "configuration state" limitation, the Examiner finds
that "Dai teaches instruction data that [is] received during [a] configuration
state" because Dai discloses that the same data terminal may be utilized for
transferring control signals, including instructions from the host controller
( e.g., read register, write register, reset register), as the one for transferring
5
Appeal2018-008081
Application 14/214, 794
analog image data. Ans. 11-12 ( citing Dai ,r 23 ); id. at 16-1 7 ( citing Dai
,I 22, Fig. 4 ).
Appellant agrees that Dai teaches a bidirectional terminal between an
image sensor and a host controller that is used to "transfer[] analog image
data from the image sensor to the host controller ... and also transfer[] one
or more digital control signals between the image sensor and the host
controller." Appeal Br. 11 ( citing Dai Abstract). Appellant however argues
that Dai does not teach a frame period divided into states, as recited in
claims 2 and 30. Id. In response to the Examiner's findings related to Dai,
Appellant contends that "even if the Patent Office is entirely correct in its
interpretation of Dai, ... a mere teaching of 'frame information' does not
disclose or suggest the alleged 'rolling-readout state,' the 'service line state,'
and the 'configuration state' occur during a 'frame period,' according to the
recitations of claims 2 and 30." Reply Br. 5. Appellant emphasizes that the
claim requires these states "occur as states of the frame period." Id.
Appellant therefore argues that a prima facie case of obviousness has not
been established with respect to claims 2 and 30, and that rejection of these
claims should be reversed.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Appellant has not
sufficiently explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
have understood Dai as teaching or suggesting a frame period comprising
multiple states in the manner recited in claim 2. As the Examiner explained,
Dai teaches a data pad which is a bidirectional terminal that receives digital
control signals, transmits digital control signals, and transmits analog image
data signals over a time period that Dai refers to as a readout phase. Ans.
9-10 (citing Dai ,r,r 34, 43, Fig. 5). Figure 5 of Dai "illustrates a timing
6
Appeal2018-008081
Application 14/214, 794
diagram of a readout phase for transferring image data and control signals
via a single terminal (e.g., data terminal 320)." Dai ,r 43. Dai further
explains the "readout phase may be divided into three periods-a vertical
blanking period, a header information period, and an image data readout
period." Id. ,r 44 (emphasis added). We find no error in the Examiner's
determination that Dai' s image data readout period teaches the claimed
rolling-readout state during which image data is output through the
bidirectional pads. Ans. 10. As Dai plainly explains, "[d]uring the image
data readout period, analog image data is transferred from the image sensor
to the host controller." Dai ,r 44.
Next, Dai discloses that the "header information period may be used
by the image sensor and/or host controller to transfer information about the
next portion of the image sensor about to be read out." Id. Dai discloses
that that information includes "digital control signals" such as "instruction
signals U INST received from a host, command signals U cMD sent to the host,
and header information." Id. ,r 34. "Header information may include Red-
Blue-Green (RBG) color, optical black, normal, and/or other pixel
information." Id. Examples of instructions received by the image sensor in
Dai "include read register, write register, reset register, etc." Id. As
illustrated in Figure 5 of Dai, the instruction and command signals, i.e.,
"control signals ( e.g., UcMn, UINsr) may be transferred between an image
sensor and a host controller during the vertical blanking period and/or the
header information period of the readout phase." Id. ,r 46 (detailing an
example where the image sensor may first transfer a command signal UcMD
to the host controller through the data terminal, and subsequently receive a
VINsr from the host controller through the same data terminal) ( emphasis
7
Appeal2018-008081
Application 14/214, 794
added). Figure 5 of Dai illustrates these states as "RX" and "TX" within
both the vertical blanking period and the header information period, separate
from each other and separate from the image data readout period of the
readout phase.
Appellant argues that even if Dai discloses the three different states, it
does not disclose or suggest that these states "occur as states o(the frame
period, according to the recitations of claims 2 and 30." Reply Br. 5
( emphasis in original). Other than using different wording, Appellant has
not sufficiently explained how "periods" of the "readout phase" in Dai are
materially different than the states of the frame period recited in claim 2.
Appellant's own Specification confirms that although "the frame period may
be divided into three defined states," multiple "configuration and service-
line phases" may exist within a given frame period. Spec. ,r,r 42, 43, Fig. 4.
We therefore find no error in the Examiner's determination that the state
disclosed in Dai during which digital control signals, including command
signals U cMD and header information, are sent to the host teaches or suggests
the claimed service-line state during which non-image data is output through
the bidirectional pads. Ans. 11.
Likewise, the Examiner did not err in deciding that the state disclosed
in Dai during which digital control signals, including instruction data signals
UINsr, are sent from the host to the image sensor teaches or suggests the
claimed configuration state during which the instruction data is received by
the image sensor through the bidirectional pads. Ans. 12. Because these
three states in Dai collectively comprise the readout phase, 3 we agree with
3 See Dai Fig. 5. Notably, Dai discloses that the periods that comprise the
readout phase may each have a predetermined length, so that, as in the
8
Appeal2018-008081
Application 14/214, 794
the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
Dai as teaching or suggesting "the frame period is divided into states
comprising: a rolling-readout state during which image data is output
through the bidirectional pads, a service-line state during which non-image
data is output through the bidirectional pads, and a configuration state
during which the instruction data is received by the image sensor through the
bidirectional pads," as recited in claim 2. 4
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2 and 30,
and claims 3-8 and 31-36, which depend from claims 2 and 30 respectively,
and Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 17; 37
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-10 and 12-36.
No time for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
present application (Spec. ,r 42), "both the host controller and the image
sensor ... automatically transition to the next period after a predetermined
time." Dai ,r 45.
4 The term "comprising" in claim 2 does not preclude multiple occurrences
of each of the three claimed states or states other than the three claimed
states from being part of the frame period.
9