Ex Parte Dong

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 23, 2004

09085519 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 23, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KIMBLE DONG
____________
Appeal No. 2004-1487
Application No. 09/085,519
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT, and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1-24, all the claims pending in the instant application.
Invention
The present invention relates to a method and apparatus for
reading out image signals from a CMOS image sensor. It is
desirable in image sensors to remove fixed pattern noise from the
signals that are processed from the pixels. See page 1 of
Appellant's specification. A CMOS image sensor and readout
Appeal No. 2004-1487
Application No. 09/085,519
2
circuit 310 formed according to the present invention is
illustrated in Figure 2. An active cell array 312 includes a
number of pixels organized into rows and columns. The active
cell array 312 includes at least one "reference row." The
reference row may be placed at the top or bottom of the active
array. The reference row is created by using a light shield or
black layer to cover the cells of the reference row from light.
Thus, the only signal that should be generated from the sensors
of the reference row is a noise or dark signal. During the
readout process, the exposure time of the reference row is the
same as the rest of the rows of the active cell array. See page
5 of Appellant's specification. Signals from the pixels in cell
array 312 are read out through a series of reading lines 314 by
analog signal processing circuitry 316. Analog signal processing
circuitry 316 sends signals through lines 318 to an analog-to-
digital converter 322. Analog-to-digital converter 322 sends
digital signals representing the processed signals through lines
324 to a fixed pattern noise storage circuitry 326 and to a fixed
pattern noise canceling processor 330. See page 5 of Appellant's
specification. Once the signals from the reference row are
stored in the fixed pattern noise storage area 326, the remaining
rows of the array may be processed. As each additional row of
Appeal No. 2004-1487
Application No. 09/085,519
3
the field of active cell array 312 is read, its signals are
converted to digital signals by analog-to-digital converter 322
and then the appropriate column fixed pattern noise signals that
are stored in fixed pattern noise storage area 326 is subtracted
from them by fixed pattern noise canceling processor 330. See
page 6 of Appellant's specification.
Claim 1 is representative of Appellant's claimed invention
and is reproduced as follows:
1. A MOS image sensor comprising:
a pixel array formed from a plurality of individual pixels
organized as rows and columns, said pixel array including a
reference row;
analog signal processing circuitry for reading out analog
signals from the pixel array;
an analog-to-digital converter for converting analog signals
from the analog processing circuitry into digital signals;
fixed pattern noise storage circuitry for storing digital
signals representative of the signals from the reference row of
the pixel array; and
a fixed pattern noise canceling processor for subtracting
the digital reference row signals stored in the fixed pattern
noise storage circuitry from the digital signals representative
of the signals from the other pixels in the pixel array.
Appeal No. 2004-1487
Application No. 09/085,519
4
References
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Nishiki 5,038,369 Aug. 6, 1991
S.K. Mendis et al. "CMOS Active Pixel Image Sensors for Highly
Integrated Imaging Systems" IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits,
Vol. 32, No. 2, February 1997.
R. Panicacci et al. "1/4-Inch CMOS Active Pixel Sensor with Smart
On-Chip Functions and Full Digital Interface" Hot Chips IX,
August 1997.
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mendis in view of Panicacci and further in view
of Nishiki.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner's rejections and the arguments of Appellant
and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
Appeal No. 2004-1487
Application No. 09/085,519
5
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellants.
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. "In
reviewing the [E]xaminer's decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument." Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. "[T]he Board must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the agency's conclusion." In re Lee,
277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002). With
these principles in mind, we commence review of the pertinent
evidence and arguments of Appellant and Examiner.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to find a
prima facie case of obviousness to establish that the teachings
Appeal No. 2004-1487
Application No. 09/085,519
6
from the prior art would have suggested the modification proposed
by the Examiner. In particular, Appellant argues that even
though the analog subtraction of Mendis could have been performed
in the digital domain, that does not make such a modification
obvious unless the prior art suggest such a change. See pages 5
and 6 of Appellant's brief. Appellant concedes that the Mendis
reference teaches the readout of analog signals from a pixel
array. However, Appellant points out that Mendis fails to teach
that the fixed pattern noise is subtracted in the digital domain.
Appellant further points out that Panicacci, although showing
analog-to-digital converters, fails to suggest or teach this
claimed limitation as well. See pages 7 and 8 of Appellant's
brief.
When determining obviousness, "[t]he factual inquiry whether
to combine references must be thorough and searching." In re
Lee, 277 F.3d at 1343, 61 USPQ2d at 1433 citing McGinley v.
Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1351-52, 60 USPQ2d 1001,
1008 (Fed. Cir. 2001). "It must be based on objective evidence
of record." Id. "Broad conclusory statements regarding the
teaching of multiple references, standing alone, are not
'evidence.'" In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614,
Appeal No. 2004-1487
Application No. 09/085,519
7
1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999). "Mere denials and conclusory statements,
however, are not sufficient to establish a genuine issue of
material fact." Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999, 50 USPQ2d at 1617,
citing McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576,
1578, 27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Examiner agrees that Mendis does not expressly teach an
analog-to-digital converter. See page 5 of the answer. The
examiner points out that Panicacci teaches an analog-to-digital
converter. The Examiner further points out that Nishiki also
teaches subtraction in the digital domain. See page 5 of the
answer. However, the Examiner has failed to find any evidence of
record that supports that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have reason to make the proposed modification to Mendis.
Appeal No. 2004-1487
Application No. 09/085,519
8
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF/lbg
Appeal No. 2004-1487
Application No. 09/085,519
9
PERKINS COIE LLP
PATENT-SEA
P.O. BOX 1247
SEATTLE, WA 98111-1247