Ex parte Street

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 10, 2000

08752667 (B.P.A.I. May. 10, 2000)

THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not
written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ROBERT A. STREET
____________
Appeal No. 1999-1800
Application No. 08/752,667
____________
HEARD: May 1, 2000
____________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 21, which are all of the claims
pending in this application.
Appellant's invention relates to an amorphous silicon
semiconductor array in which a cluster of sensor elements or a
plurality of sub-pixels are addressed by one gate line and one
data line. The array also includes a control line controlling
Appeal No. 1999-1800
Application No. 08/752,667
2
a switch associated with a sensor element or sub-pixel for
translating charge to another sensor element or sub-pixel
which is addressed by the data line. Claim 1 is illustrative
of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
1. An amorphous silicon sensor array comprised of a
plurality of individually addressable sensor elements and a
circuit including gate lines, data lines and a control line
for selecting the elements for read out discharge, the array
including:
a plurality of clusters of associated sensor elements
wherein a sensor element in a cluster includes a switch for
switching integrated charge to another of the associated
sensor elements; and,
wherein a one of the gate lines and a one of the data
lines is associated with each one of the clusters, and the
control line is associated with at least one of the sensor
elements in each cluster, for selectively and independently
addressing for discharge the sensor elements in the array.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Street et al., "Amorphous Silicon Arrays Develop a Medical
Image," IEEE Circuits and Devices, July 1993, pp. 38-42.
(Street)
Appellant's Admitted Prior Art in the specification (APA)
Claims 1 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Street and APA.
Appeal No. 1999-1800
Application No. 08/752,667
Although the examiner lists APA in the statement of the rejection, APA1
is primarily a description of Street and, therefore, adds nothing thereto.
3
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 13,
mailed February 9, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper
No. 12, filed January 19, 1999) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 14,
filed April 2, 1999) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 21.
Claim 1 requires clusters of sensor elements with one
gate line and one data line associated with each cluster, and
a sensor element in a cluster including a switch for
discharging into another sensor element in the cluster. The
examiner asserts (Answer, pages 4-5) that Street meets each of
these limitations. Appellant, on the other hand, contends
(Brief, pages 5-6) that Street fails to meet any of the
limitations. We agree with appellant.1
Appeal No. 1999-1800
Application No. 08/752,667
Further, the examiner focuses solely on Street. Accordingly, we will limit
our discussion to Street.
4
The examiner (Answer, page 5) has interpreted each data
line of Street as being associated with a cluster of pixels
because it is connected to an entire row of pixels. Likewise,
the examiner has interpreted each gate line as being
associated with a cluster of pixels because it addresses an
entire column of pixels. However, if, for example, a row of
pixels were considered to be a cluster with a single data line
associated therewith, that cluster would not have a single
gate line also associated with it, as required by the claim.
Instead, that cluster would have plural gate lines associated
with it, as each pixel in the row would be addressed by a
different gate line. In claim 1, though, a single gate line
and a single data line must be associated with the same
cluster. Therefore, Street's rows and columns cannot meet the
claimed clusters.
In addition, as explained above, claim 1 requires a
sensor element in a cluster to discharge into another sensor
element in the cluster. The examiner has completely failed to
address this limitation. As pointed out by appellant (Brief,
Appeal No. 1999-1800
Application No. 08/752,667
5
page 5), each element in Street discharges directly to the
data line. Street does not switch charge between elements.
Therefore, Street again does not meet the claimed limitation.
In view of the deficiencies of Street and the lack of evidence
or explanation by the examiner to overcome such deficiencies,
we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1 nor the claims
which depend therefrom, claims 2 through 12.
Each of claims 13 and 19 recites an array of pixels,
wherein each pixel constitutes a plurality of sub-pixels.
Also, each pixel is addressed by a single gate line and a
single (or, for claim 19, common) data line. Thus, the sub-
pixels are equivalent to claim 1's sensors, and the pixels are
equivalent to claim 1's clusters. As we have explained above,
Street addresses each pixel with a gate and a data line, and
Street shows no further subdivisions of the pixels.
Therefore, Street is deficient for the same reasons described
above.
Further, claim 13 recites that a sub-pixel translates
charge to another sub-pixel (of the same pixel). Similarly
claim 19 recites that plural sub-pixels (of a pixel) translate
charge to the data line through one sub-pixel of the same
Appeal No. 1999-1800
Application No. 08/752,667
6
pixel. As discussed above, Street does not subdivide the
pixels into sub-pixels, and each pixel discharges directly to
the data line, not through other pixels. Therefore, Street
does not meet the limitations of claims 13 and 19.
Consequently, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 13,
19, and the claims which depend therefrom, claims 14 through
18, 20, and 21.
Appeal No. 1999-1800
Application No. 08/752,667
7
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-1800
Application No. 08/752,667
8
ALBERT P SHARPE III
FAY SHARPE BEALL FAGAN MINNICH & MCKEE
1100 SUPERIOR AVENUE
SUITE 700
CLEVELAND, OH 44114-2518