Ex Parte Bock

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 8, 2011

11601748 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 8, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/601,748 11/20/2006 Nikolai E. Bock 2003-0714.03/US 6688
86929 7590 03/09/2011
Treyz Law Group
870 Market Street, Suite 984
San Francisco, CA 94102
EXAMINER
EPPS, GEORGIA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2878
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte NIKOLAI E. BOCK
____________

Appeal 2009-009855
Application 11/601,748
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304 or for filing a request for rehearing as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-009855
Application 11/601,748

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 64-68 and 72-76. Claims 1-63, 69, 70, 77, and 78 have been canceled
and claims 71 and 79 have been indicated as allowable. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to reducing substrate and other common-
mode noise during a pixel readout operation in imaging devices by having
two adjacent pixels share row and reset lines and a row selection circuit, and
configuring the output transistors of the pixels as a differential amplifier
(Spec. ¶¶ [0015]-[0016]).
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 64, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as
follows:
64. An imager device comprising:
a plurality of photosensors arranged in rows and columns; and

a differential amplifier shared with a first one and a second one
of the plurality of photosensors, said differential amplifier having first
and second differential outputs based on signals received from the
shared first and second photosensors, the first differential output being
connected to a first pixel output line and the second differential output
being connected to a second pixel output line.

Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 64-67
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kamiyama (US
3,946,151) and Bamji (US 6,919,549 B2) because the differential amplifier
2
Appeal 2009-009855
Application 11/601,748

shown in Figure 5A of Bamji does not show the claimed first and second
differential outputs connected to the first and second pixel output lines (App.
Br. 7-10). In particular, Appellant contends that the outputs of the
differential amplifier are connected to the current sources IS1 and IS2 which
are part of one line connected to the outputs (App. Br. 8). Appellant relies
on the same reasons stated above to assert the patentability of claims 68, and
72-76 (App. Br. 11).
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 64 as being obvious because
the combination of Kamiyama and Bamji fails to teach or suggest the recited
first and second differential outputs of the differential amplifier connected to
the first and second pixel output lines?

ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellant’s contentions above. We specifically agree
with Appellant’s assertion (App. Br. 8-9) that Bamji teaches or suggests only
one pixel output line. Contrary to the Examiner’s assertion (Ans. 10),2
Figure 5A of Bamji shows a differential pixel detector 70’ which has one
pixel output. Bamji discloses that the differential amplifier 170 provides
two differential outputs to the current sources IS1 and IS2 in the voltage
controlled charge pump 160. However, we agree with Appellant (Reply Br.
4-5)3 that these two current sources are part of the same line generating one
single pixel readout . See Bamji, Fig. 5A, col. 9, l. 57-col. 10, l. 36.

2 Examiner’s Answer mailed Feb. 23, 2009.
3 Reply Brief filed Mar. 9, 2009.
3
Appeal 2009-009855
Application 11/601,748

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 64 as being obvious because
the combination of Kamiyama and Bamji fails to teach or suggest the recited
first and second differential outputs of the differential amplifier connected to
the first and second pixel output lines. Independent claim 72 includes
limitations similar to those recited in claim 64, which were discussed above
and determined not to be taught or suggested by the combination of
Kamiyama and Bamji. Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of independent claims 64 and 72, as well as claims 65-68 and 73-
76 dependent thereon.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 64-68 and 72-76 is reversed.

4
Appeal 2009-009855
Application 11/601,748

REVERSED

ELD

TREYZ LAW GROUP
870 MARKET STREET, SUITE 984
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
5