Ex Parte HynecekDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 23, 201311079801 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JAROSLAV HYNECEK ____________ Appeal 2011-013662 Application 11/079,801 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-013662 Application 11/079,801 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 8-13, 17, and 18 (App. Br. 4). Claims 3-7, 14-16, and 19 were objected to as being dependent from a rejected base claim (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The Invention Exemplary Claim 1 follows: 1. An image sensor pixel circuit, comprising: a photodiode including a charge detection node configured to convert impinging photons into electrons and to provide a large detection node capacitance during sensing of the charge detection node and a low detection node capacitance during reset of the charge detection node. Claims 1, 2, 8-13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oh (U.S. Patent No. 6,441,412 B2) in view of Bencuya (U.S. Patent No. 6,911,640 B1) (Ans. 4-12). ISSUE Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the following issue: Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of Oh and Bencuya renders claims 1, 2, 8-13, 17, and 18 obvious because Bencuya teaches away from the limitation “to provide a large detection node capacitance during sensing of the charge detection node and a low detection node capacitance during reset of the charge detection node,” as recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claims 8 and 9? Appeal 2011-013662 Application 11/079,801 3 ANALYSIS Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Oh and Bencuya renders claims 1, 2, 8-13, 17, and 18 obvious because Bencuya teaches away from the claim limitation emphasized above (App. Br. 10-17). Appellant argues that “while Bencuya teaches that reset noise can be reduced by reducing capacitance of the sense node, Bencuya also clearly indicates that such a reduction is undesirable as it also reduces the overall dynamic range in the camera system” (id. at 11). Appellant also argues that Bencuya “does not teach a variable sense node capacitance” (id. at 15). Appellant argues that Bencuya instead “teaches that the capacitance in such conventional devices is also reduced during the sensing period and most likely fixed” (id.). We conclude with respect to the apparatus claims on appeal (i.e., 1, 2, 8, 13, 17, and 18), however, that the disputed limitation “to provide” a certain capacitance is a statement of intended use or purpose regarding the recited structure. “An ] intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed.Cir. 2003). Here, the disputed functional limitation of “providing” is not positively recited as actually being performed (see representative claim 1), but rather, the claim merely recites a charge detection node that is capable of providing. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, 13, 17, and 18. Appeal 2011-013662 Application 11/079,801 4 With respect to the method claims (i.e., claims 9-12), the Examiner concluded that Bencuya does not teach away from the claimed invention but instead, merely teaches that reducing the capacitance at the sense node may have the undesirable effect of reducing “the overall dynamic range in the camera system” (Ans. 9) (citing Bencuya, col.1, ll. 38-41). The Examiner also concluded that the combination of Oh and Bencuya teaches a variable capacitance at the sense node because “Oh teaches wanting relatively high capacitance during sensing (providing an increase in dynamic range) . . . while Bencuya teaches a decrease in capacitance of the photodiode reduces reset noise” (id. at 12). We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion. Oh discloses that “since a maximum output signal is directly proportional to the number of electrons to be extracted from the photodiode, the maximum output signal increases with increased electron acceptability, i.e., an increased capacitance ] of the photodiode” (col. 2, ll. 24-28). Bencuya discloses that “[r]educing the capacitance of the sense node can reduce reset noise” (col. 1, ll. 38-39). Thus, the claim limitation of increasing the capacitance after reset and reducing the capacitance during reset is a combination of familiar elements from Oh and Bencuya respectively that would have yielded predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). We also agree with the Examiner that there may be cameras in which the decrease in the dynamic range as mentioned in Bencuya may be tolerable such as cameras designed to be used in a uniform lighting environment (see Ans. 10- 11). That is, we conclude that Bencuya merely mentions a disadvantage of a capacitance reduction and does not teach away from lowering capacitance for all cameras used in all environments. Accordingly, we find no error in Appeal 2011-013662 Application 11/079,801 5 the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of the method claims (i.e., claims 9- 12). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 8-13, 17, and 18 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation