Ex Parte Lai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 1, 2016

12689905 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/689,905 01119/2010
60601 7590 04/04/2016
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P,C,
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
FAIRFAX, VA 22033
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chun-Hung Lai
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.
0941/2387PUS1 6757
EXAMINER
JEBARI, MOHAMMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHUN-HUNG LAI, CHI-XIANG TSENG,
CHEN-WEI LU,
and I-HSIU CHEN
Appeal2014-004953
Application 12/689,905
Technology Center 2400
Before LARRY J. HUME, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. 1 We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants identify VisEra Technologies Company
Limited as the real party in interest. (Br. 2.)
Appeal2014-004953
Application 12/689,905
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a 3D color
image sensor. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A three dimensional (3D) color image sensor,
compnsmg:
a semiconductor substrate, having a plurality of first
photodiodes and a plurality of second photodiodes, and a wiring
layer formed under the first photodiodes and the second
photodiodes; and
a light filter array layer disposed on the first photodiodes
and the second photodiodes, having a plurality of color filter
patterns and a plurality of (infrared) IR light filter patterns,
wherein each of the IR light filter patterns receives depth
information of 3D color image of an object and corresponds to
the first photodiode, each of the color filter patterns receives
color image information of 3D color image of the object and
corresponds to the second photodiode and a size of every single
one of the IR light filter patterns is larger than a size of every
single one of the color filter patterns.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4--9, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2008/0067330 Al, pub.
Mar. 20, 2008), Tsuchida (US 2010/0177231 Al, pub. July 15, 2010), and
Bamji (US 7,375,803 Bl, issued May 20, 2008). (Final Act. 3-6.)
The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Zigadlo et al. (US
6,292,212 Bl, issued Sept. 18, 2001) ("Zigadlo"). (Final Act. 7-8.)
2
Appeal2014-004953
Application 12/689,905
The Examiner rejected claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Lee et al. (US
2010/0033611 Al, pub. Feb. 11, 2010) ("Lee"). (Final Act. 8-9.)
The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Liu (US 2009/0325086
Al, pub. Dec. 31, 2009). (Final Act. 9-10.)
The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Maeda et al. (US
2003/0128889 Al, pub. July 10, 2003) ("Maeda"). (Final Act. 10-11.)
The Examiner rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Aotsuka (US
2004/0105017 Al, pub. June 3, 2004). (Final Act. 11.)
The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and JungChak Ahn et al.,
Advanced image sensor technology for pixel scaling down toward 1. Oµm
(Invited), (IEEE 2008) ("Ahn"). (Final Act. 11-12.)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issues: 2
Issue One: Whether the combination of Yamamoto, Tsuchida, and
Bamji teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitation: "a size of
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 25, 2013), Final Office
Action (mailed May 31, 2013), and the Examiner's Answer (mailed
Jan. 15, 2014) for the respective details. We also note Appellants did not
file a Reply Brief to rebut the Examiner's findings and legal conclusions.
3
Appeal2014-004953
Application 12/689,905
every single one of the IR light filter patterns is larger than a size of every
single one of the color filter patterns," and the commensurate limitation
recited in independent claim 17. (Br. 9-10.)
Issue Two: Whether the combination of Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji,
and Zigadlo teaches or suggests the dependent claim 3 limitation, "wherein a
ratio of a size of the IR light filter pattern to a size of the color filter pattern
is greater than 10." (Br. 10-12.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments
and we adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 3-12); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 16-17). We concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and emphasize the following.
Issue One
Appellants argue "Yamamoto, Tsuchida and Bamji fail to disclose
that a size of every single one of the IR light filter patterns is larger than a
size of every single one of the color filter patterns, as recited in claims 1
and 17." (Br. 9.) However, we note the Examiner correctly finds that Bamji
teaches or suggests this limitation:
Bamji depicts in (fig. 1 C) and states in (col. 3 lines 50-
67) that IR-NIR pixels are physically larger than R, G, or B
pixels, and since the filters are provided on a per pixel basis,
then, the size of the IR-filters will be larger than the size of the
color filters.
4
Appeal2014-004953
Application 12/689,905
(Ans. 16.) Therefore, on this record, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1 and 1 7.
Issue Two
The Examiner primarily relies on Bamji and Zigadlo as teaching or
suggesting the ratio of the IR light filter pattern size to the color filter pattern
size greater than 10. (Final Act. 8; Bamji Fig. IC, col. 3, 11. 54--56; Zigadlo
Fig. 5, col. 5, 11. 22-30.) Appellants argue the ratios disclosed in each of the
individual references is less than 10 and, because the filter patterns of the
two references are different, "one skilled in the art cannot use nor would
have no rational reason to use [them in combination.]" (Br. 10-11.)
This argument is unpersuasive to the extent it attacks the references
individually, whereas the Examiner relies upon the combined teachings and
suggestions of the combination ofBamji and Zigadlo. (Ans. 16-17.) See In
re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for
obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole,
would have suggested the patentee's invention to a person having ordinary
skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F .2d 413, 425 (CCP A 1981 ). Furthermore,
as held in In re Keller:
To justify combining reference teachings in support of a
rejection it is not necessary that a device shown in one
reference can be physically inserted into the device shown in
the other. The test for obviousness is not whether the features
of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
5
Appeal2014-004953
Application 12/689,905
Id. (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, on this record, and lacking any
evidence or persuasive argument to the contrary, we agree with the
Examiner's findings and legal conclusion of obviousness:
Even though the ratio of a size of IR-filters to a size of color
filters is not greater than 10, but it would have been obvious for
one having skill in the art at the time of invention to augment
the ratio and make it even larger than the one explained above
in order to have higher sensitivity for IR light.
(Ans. 17.)
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons discussed above, and on this record, we sustain the
obviousness rejections of claims 1 and 17 over Yamamoto, Tsuchida, and
Bamji, and of claim 3 over Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Zigadlo.
We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 4--9 and 18-20
over the combination of Yamamoto, Tsuchida, and Bamji; of claim 2 over
the combination of Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Zigadlo; of claims 10-
12 over the combination of Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Lee; of claim
13 over the combination of Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Liu; of claim
14 over the combination of Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Maeda; of
claim 15 over the combination of Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and
Aotsuka; and of claim 16 over the combination of Yamamoto, Tsuchida,
Bamji, and Ahn, which rejections are not argued separately with
particularity. (App. Br. 10-13.)
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20.
6
Appeal2014-004953
Application 12/689,905
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7