Ex Parte Johannesson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 23, 2013

10510208 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MATTIAS JOHANNESSON and ANDERS MURHED
____________

Appeal 2011-004805
Application 10/510,208
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 2011-004805
Application 10/510,208

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 3-20 (App. Br. 2-3). Claims 1 and 2 were cancelled (id. at 2). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Invention
Exemplary Claim 16 follows:
16. A sensor for imaging characteristics of an object,
comprising:

a first area of pixels having a first degree of resolution,
the first area imaging three-dimensional geometrical
characteristics of the object; and

a second area of pixels having a second degree of
resolution different from the first degree of resolution, the
second area imaging two-dimensional characteristics of the
object,

wherein the first area of pixels and the second area of
pixels absorb electromagnetic radiation from the object and
convert the radiation absorbed into electrical charges.

Claims 3-5, 7-11 and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Leonard (U.S. Patent No. 7,034,272 B1) in view of
Eberhard (U.S. Patent No. 5,355,309) (Ans. 4-17).
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leonard in view of Eberhard and Aoyama (U.S. Patent
No. 6,320,618 B1) (Ans. 17-18).
Appeal 2011-004805
Application 10/510,208

3
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leonard in view of Eberhard and Spears (U.S. Patent No.
7,027,193 B2) (Ans. 18-19).

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt the Examiner’s factual findings as set forth in the Answer
(Ans. 3, et seq.).

ISSUE
Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of Leonard
and Eberhard teaches or suggests a sensor that includes two different regions
that measure different information about an object with different resolutions,
as required by independent claims 9 and 16?

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in concluding that the
combination of Leonard and Eberhard renders independent claims 9 and 16
obvious because “the combination does not suggest a sensor that includes
two different regions that measure different information about an object with
different resolutions” (App. Br. 8). In particular, Appellants argue that
“Leonard does not suggest regions having different pixel densities” (App.
Br. 9). In addition, Appellants argue that Eberhard “does not suggest a
sensor that includes two different regions that measure different information
about an object” (id.).
Appeal 2011-004805
Application 10/510,208

4
The Examiner found that the combination of Leonard and Eberhard
teaches the disputed claim limitation (Ans. 20). As explained by the
Examiner, “Leonard is relied upon for teaching a sensor with two areas
capable of capturing 3D and 2D data respectively while Eberhard is relied
upon for teaching a sensor with multiple resolutions” (id.). We agree with
the Examiner. Appellants cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Leonard teaches
a sensor with two areas that measure different information about an object
by disclosing that “regions 38 and 40 of CMOS sensor 10 are configured to
capture 3D data while region 42 is configured to capture 2D data” (col. 6, ll.
45-47). Eberhard teaches a sensor with two areas that measure information
with different resolution by disclosing that “[t]he outer zone or area 12 [of
the sensor] has medium resolution, whereas the inner zone or area 14 has
high resolution” (col. 5, ll. 1-3). Accordingly, the claim requirement of a
sensor that includes two different regions that measure different information
about an object with different resolutions is a combination of familiar
elements from Leonard and Eberhard respectively that would have yielded
predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 9 and 16 as well as the claims dependent therefrom (i.e.,
claims 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20) because Appellants did not set forth any
separate and distinct patentability arguments for the dependent claims (see
App. Br. 9-11).

Appeal 2011-004805
Application 10/510,208

5
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3-20 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

peb