Ex Parte LIN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2018

14096440 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/096,440 12/04/2013
60601 7590 05/23/2018
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chi-Han LIN
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.
094 l/2882PUS2 8935
EXAMINER
GARCES, NELSON Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2814
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2018 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 CHI-HAN LIN, ZONG-RU TU, YU-KUN HSIAO,
and CHIH-KUNG CHANG
Appeal2017-008198
Application 14/096,440
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, BRIAND. RANGE, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1 and 7-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a back-surface illuminated CMOS image
sensor. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A back-surface illuminated CMOS image sensor,
compnsmg
a substrate comprising a photodiode array;
a passivation layer disposed on the photodiode array;
a color filter array comprising a plurality of color filters
formed on the passivation layer, wherein each of the color
filters corresponds [to] one photodiode of the photodiode array;
Appeal2017-008198
Application 14/096,440
a first grid formed on the passivation layer and filled into
the spaces between the plurality of color filters, wherein the
first grid has a refractive index of lower than about 1.46 and
that of the plurality of color filters;
a second grid on the first grid, wherein the second grid
comprises a material different from that of the first grid;
a metal grid aligned to the first grid between the plurality
of color filters, wherein the metal grid has an extinction
coefficient that is greater than zero; and
a microlens array on the second grid and the color filter
array, wherein each microlens in the microlens array has a
height of 50% to 80% of a periodic interval of the first grid.
Li
Qian
Takase
Tang
The References
US 2007 /0035847 Al
US 2012/0019695 Al
US 2012/0268631 Al
US 2014/0091417 Al
The Rejections
Feb. 15,2007
Jan.26,2012
Oct. 25, 2012
Apr. 3, 2014
(filed Sept. 28, 2013)
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1,
10 and 11 over Takase, claim 7 over Takase in view of Tang, claims 8 and 9
over Takase in view of Li and claim 12 over Takase in view of Qian.
OPINION
We affirm the rejections.
Although references other than Takase are applied to some of the
dependent claims, the Appellants argue the claims as a group (Br. 9--12).
We therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1. Claims 7-12
stand or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
Takase discloses a back-surface illuminated CMOS image sensor
comprising 1) a substrate (3) having an array ofphotodiodes (PD), 2) an
insulating film (23) (which the Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the
2
Appeal2017-008198
Application 14/096,440
Appellants' passivation layer (Final Act. 3)) on the photodiode (PD) array,
3) a color filter array which is on the insulating film (23) and has a color
filter (7) corresponding to each photodiode (PD), 4) a partition wall (9)
which is on the insulating film (23), has a lower refractive index than the
color filters (7), and has a lower layer portion (29) (which corresponds to the
Appellants' first grid) and an upper layer portion (31) (which corresponds to
the Appellants' second grid comprising a material different from the first
grid), 5) wiring (23) (which the Examiner relies upon as corresponding to
the Appellants' metal array aligned to the first grid between the color filters
and having an extinction coefficient greater than zero (Final Act. 3)), and
6) an array of microlenses (11) on the partition wall (9)'s upper layer
portion (31) and the color filters (7) (i1i138, 39, 42, 43, 47, 49, 65, 95, 97;
Fig. 1).
Takase does not disclose the ratio of the microlens (1 l)'s height to the
partition layer (9)'s lower layer portion (29)'s periodic interval (distance
between the centerlines of lower layer portions (29) on each side of a color
filter (7)). 1 However, because Takase's image sensor's microlens (11) and
partition walls (9) have the same structure and purpose as the Appellants'
microlens array and first and second grids, it appears that one of ordinary
skill in the art when determining suitable height-to-width ratios of the
micro lens (11) through no more than routine optimization would have
arrived at height-to-periodic interval ratios including those within the
1 The Appellants' Specification does not indicate any criticality of the ratio
of the microlens height to the periodic interval of the first grid but, rather,
merely states that "[t]he microlens structure 114 may have a height of about
50% to about 80% of the periodic interval 108P" (Spec. i1 70).
3
Appeal2017-008198
Application 14/096,440
Appellants' 50---80% range. Moreover, the Appellants' assertion that "since
the second grid is on the first grid and the microlens array is on the
second grid and the color filter array, each microlens in the microlens
array must have a height of 50%, to 80 of a periodic interval of the first
grid" (Br. 10) indicates that because Takase's partition wall (9)'s upper
layer portion (31) is on the lower layer portion (29), and the micro lens (11)
is on the upper layer portion (31) and the array of color filters (7) (Fig. 1 ),
the ratio of microlens height to partition wall (9)'s lower layer portion (29)'s
periodic interval must be 50---80%.
The Appellants argue (Br. 11 ):
Takase merely discloses wiring 23 (cited as the claimed metal
grid) formed between adjacent photodiodes PD, but fails to
disclose or suggest that the wiring 23 having [sic] a grid shape.
Although the partition walls 9 (including 31and29, see FIG. 1)
have a mesh pattern (defined as a grid shape by Takase) and
wiring 23 is below the partition wall 9, nothing implies that the
wiring 23 has the same grid shape (mesh pattern) as that of the
partition wall 9. The cross sectional view of FIG. 1 of Takase
cannot imply any pattern at all.
Takase's disclosures that "[p]artition walls 9 have a grid shape (mesh
pattern) in plan view having openings in portions corresponding to color
filters 7" (i-f 47), "[c]olor filter 7 is formed in an island shape (formed in a
manner corresponding to each of the pixel portions)" (i-f 43), the pixels have
space for the wiring layer between them unless they are too small (i-f 126),
each photodiode (PD) corresponds to a pixel (i1i138, 39), and the wiring (23)
is between adjacent photodiodes (PD) and partially shields a bottom surface
of the partition wall (9) (i1i142, 65), indicate that the wiring (23) has the
partition wall (9)'s mesh pattern.
4
Appeal2017-008198
Application 14/096,440
The Appellants assert that "a short circuit would be formed when the
wiring 23 that is electrically connected to different devices disposed in the
solid-state imaging device is designed to have a mesh pattern" (Br. 11 ).
That assertion is not well taken because a mere assertion by the
Appellants' counsel cannot take the place of evidence. See In re De Blauwe,
736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
For the above reasons we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejections.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 10 and 11 over
Takase, claim 7 over Takase in view of Tang, claims 8 and 9 over Takase in
view of Li and claim 12 over Takase in view of Qian are affirmed.
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
5