Ex Parte Sano et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 18, 201713768468 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 18, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/768,468 02/15/2013 Takuya Sano 880001-5348-US00 9973 134795 7590 01/20/2017 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (DC) 100 E WISCONSIN AVENUE Suite 3300 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 EXAMINER HALIYUR, PADMA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2663 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/20/2017 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): DCipdocket @ michaelbest. com sbj ames @michaelbest.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TAKUYA SANO and TOSHIFUMI WAKANO Appeal 2016-003292 Application 13/768,4681 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Sony Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-003292 Application 13/768,468 THE INVENTION The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a “solid-state image pickup apparatus and electronic apparatus.” Spec. 1:5—6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A solid-state image pickup apparatus, comprising: a pixel region comprising a plurality of pixels, respective ones of the plurality of pixels including a photoelectric conversion element; a plurality of transfer wirings formed on the pixel region in parallel to one another with uniform opening widths therebetween; and different wirings formed in a wiring layer above the transfer wirings, at least a part of the different wirings being overlapped with the transfer wirings in a plan view, the transfer wirings and the different wirings forming a light shielding structure at least in an area in the pixel region corresponding to the respective photoelectric conversion element. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Taura US 2010/0225776 A1 Sept. 9,2010 REJECTION Claims 1—20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Taura. Final Act. 3—12. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have 2 Appeal 2016-003292 Application 13/768,468 considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 1—20. Appellants and the Examiner dispute the proper construction of the term “corresponding.” However, claims only need to be construed “to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chemical Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Vivid Technologies, Inc. v. American Science & Engineering, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Because we find, as discussed below, the Examiner did not err in finding Taura discloses the claimed invention under Appellants’ proposed narrower construction, we need not resolve the claim construction dispute. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Taura discloses “a light shielding structure at least in an area in the pixel region corresponding to the respective photoelectric conversion element,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6—9; Reply Br. 3—6. Appellants focus their arguments on Taura figure 3, which Appellants contend shows “that the light shielding structure [24] is not in an area in the pixel region corresponding to the respective photoelectric conversion element [14]; rather, the light shielding structure is in an area not corresponding to the photoelectric conversion element.” App. Br. 8 ; see also Reply Br. 6 (“That is, because light shielding element 24 of Taura is disposed above element 14, and because light is incident on element 14 from above (Taura at paragraph [0055], stating that ‘the upper surface of the substrate 13 serv[es] as a light incident surface’), it would be deleterious to the operation of Taura’s device if element 24 also covered element 14, thus blocking incident light.”). To the extent Appellants address Taura figure 2, Appellants state as follows: 3 Appeal 2016-003292 Application 13/768,468 The Examiner alleges that Taura FIG. 2 discloses a light shielding film (24) and a photoelectric conversion element (14) (see, for example, Examiner’s Answer at page 14 paragraph 2). Taura FIG. 3 clearly shows that element 24 is displaced in the transverse direction from element 14; thus, the Office’s application of Taura to Appellant’s claims relies on a construction whereby there is no overlap between elements 24 and 14. Reply Br. 3. The Examiner finds Taura figure 2 discloses light shielding film 24 over photoelectric conversion element 14: Examiner would like to further point to Fig 2 where element 24 has been disclosed to be a “light shielding film” in |0052 of the printed publication of the Taura reference. As it can be clearly seen in this figure, the light shielding film 24 is an “area corresponding to the photoelectric conversion element”. The photoelectric conversion element in Fig 2 is designated by element[ ]14. Ans. 14. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument directed to the disclosure of Taura figure 3 that the Examiner erred.2 * 4Appellants offer no argument or explanation as to why the Examiner erred in finding Taura figure 2 discloses the disputed limitation. After reviewing all of the evidence and arguments, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings. Taura figure 2 clearly discloses light shielding film 24 overlapping photodetector 14. For at least the aforementioned reasons, on this record, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred. We find a preponderance of the 2 Appellants rely on the same argument for independent claim 7 and do not separately argue dependent claims 2—6 and 8—20. App. Br. 9-10. 4 Appeal 2016-003292 Application 13/768,468 evidence supports the Examiner’s factual findings of anticipation for all claims on appeal. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1—20. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation