Ex Parte Tewinkle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2013

11584036 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013)

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.
11/584,036 10/20/2006 Scott L. Tewinkle 20060236-US-NP 5723
86185 7590 02/26/2013
Simpson & Simpson, PLLC
5555 Main Street
Williamsville, NY 14221-5406
EXAMINER
COWAN, EUEL K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2664
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2013 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 SCOTT L. TEWINKLE and PAUL A. HOSIER

____________________

Appeal 2011-011789
Application 11/584,036
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J.
GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011789
Application 11/584,036

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to image sensor arrays
used in raster input scanners, such as used in digital copiers, or in any
image-recording device such as a digital camera (Spec. 1, ¶ [0002])

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. An apparatus for outputting image data, comprising:

a first subset of photosensors, and a second subset of
photosensors;

each of the first subset of photo sensors and second
subset of photo sensors including a first interleaved group of
photosensors outputting signals to a first video channel and
a second interleaved group of photo sensors outputting signals
to a second video channel; and

circuitry for outputting multiplexed image signals from
the first video channel and second video channel of the first
subset of photosensors and multiplexed image signals from the
first video channel and second video channel of the second
subset of photosensors to a common out line.

Appeal 2011-011789
Application 11/584,036

3
C. REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:

Ozono US 6,717,617 Bl Apr. 06. 2004
Hori US 2005/0007475 Al Jan. 13, 2005
Ackland US 2006/0055800 Al Mar. 16, 2006
Spears US 7,102,679 Bl Sep. 05, 2006

D. REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being
anticipated by Ackland.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ackland and Ozono.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ackland and Hori.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ackland and Spears.

II. ISSUES
The issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in finding
that Ackland discloses:
1) first and second subsets of photosensors, each including “a first
interleaved group of photosensors outputting signals to a first video channel
and a second interleaved group of photosensors outputting signals to a
second video channel;” and
Appeal 2011-011789
Application 11/584,036

4
2) “circuitry for outputting multiplexed image signals” to “a common
out line” (Claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Ackland
1. Ackland discloses an imager comprising plural sub-arrays of
respectively different kinds of pixels, wherein Ackland’s Figure 3A is
reproduced below:

Appeal 2011-011789
Application 11/584,036

5
In Figure 3A, an imager 30 employing sub-arrays of regular pixels 12
and wideband pixels 32A, respectively, wherein the nxm array may be
viewed as two interleaved nxm/2 sub-arrays (p. 2, ¶ [0028]), wherein the
signals from the pixels are output to a plurality of column bus wires 35A and
35B.
2. Ackland discloses that it is well-known that each pixel 12
contains a photodetector plus multiplexing circuitry (p.1, ¶ [0006]).
3. The image processor 18 combines the signals from the two
sub-arrays (p. 3, ¶ [0038]).

IV. ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. 102(e)
Appellants contend that “Ackland fails to teach that each of the first
and second subsets of photosensors includes first and second interleaved
groups of photosensors” because “the first column of pixels is not
interleaved with the third column of pixels, and the second column of pixels
is not interleaved with the fourth column of pixels” and “there is no regular
alternating arrangement of pixels from first and second groups contained” in
each column (App. Br. 15). Appellants also contend that “Appellants recite
first and second video channels for each of the first and second subsets of
photosensors, … [i]n other words, Appellants recite four video channels,”
which Ackland fails to disclose (App. Br. 16). Appellants then contend that
“multiplexing … means that a single selected signal is output via the video
output at a time, which is entirely different than the restoration of resolution,
combination of signals for color enhancement and creation of pseudo-color
of Ackland” (App. Br. 17).
Appeal 2011-011789
Application 11/584,036

6
However, the Examiner finds that “Ackland discloses in fig. 3A an
arrangement of group of photosensors containing two sub groups … in
which each sub group contains interleaved photosensors of the same type in
at least the column direction and are interleaved with a different spacing in
the row direction” and points out that “[t]he claim is broad in that it does not
specify what kinds of pixels are interleaved” and “does not require an
alternating arrangement of the first and second groups of photosensors as
argued” (Ans. 9). The Examiner also finds that “Ackland in fig. 3A clearly
shows more than four video output lines” (id.). The Examiner then finds
that Ackland discloses that “multiplexed signals are then output by part 18 to
common line denoted ‘Output Image’” since the claim “is broad in that
‘circuitry’ could comprise any amount of different components” (Ans. 10).
We find no error with the Examiner’s findings.
We give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation. Phillips
v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Claim 1 merely recites that
the subsets of photosensors include “a first interleaved group” and “a second
interleaved group” of photosensors. Although Appellants argue that in
Ackland, “the first column of pixels is not interleaved with the third column
of pixels, and the second column of pixels is not interleaved with the fourth
column of pixels” and that “there is no regular alternating arrangement of
pixels from first and second groups contained” in each column (App. Br.
15), such argument is not commensurate in scope with the recited language
of claim 1. We agree with the Examiner that that “[t]he claim is broad in
that it does not specify what kinds of pixels are interleaved” and “does not
require an alternating arrangement of the first and second groups of
photosensors as argued” (Ans. 9). Thus, we give “interleaved group” its
Appeal 2011-011789
Application 11/584,036

7
broadest reasonable interpretation as a group of photosensors that is placed
at any alternating intervals, whether with each other or with other groups of
photosensors.
Claim 1 also merely recites that signals are output to “first video
channel” and “second video channel” from the first and second interleaved
group respectively. Thus, we give “first video channel” its broadest
reasonable interpretation as any channel to which signals from the first
group is output and give “second video channel” its broadest reasonable
interpretation as any channel to which signals from the second group are
output.
Further, claim 1 merely requires that the multiplexed signals from
“from the first video channel and the second video channel” of the first and
second subsets are output “to a common out line.” Although Appellants
contend that “multiplexing … means that a single selected signal is output
via the video output at a time” (App. Br. 17), such argument is not
commensurate in scope with the language of claim 1 since claim 1 does not
recite any such “at a time” language. In fact, although Appellants argue that
Ackland is different because it discloses “restoration of resolution,
combination of signals for color enhancement and creation of pseudo-color”
(App. Br. 17), the language of claim 1 does not preclude the output of the
signals to a signal processor that performs such restoration, combination and
creation. That is, claim 1 merely requires that all the output signals are
received by a “common out line,” directly or eventually.
Ackland discloses an imager employing two interleaved sub-arrays of
pixels outputting signals to a plurality of column bus wires (FF 1), wherein a
pixel contains a photodetector/photosensor plus multiplexing circuitry (FF
Appeal 2011-011789
Application 11/584,036

8
2). We find the interleaved sub-arrays comprise subsets of photosensors,
each including interleaved groups of photosensors, wherein the groups of
photosensors output image signals to channels/bus wires. Thus, in view of
our broad but reasonable claim interpretation, we find no error in the
Examiner’s finding that Ackland discloses first and second subsets of
photosensors, each including “a first interleaved group of photosensors”
outputting signals to “a first video channel” and “a second interleaved group
of photosensors outputting signals to a second video channel,” as required
by claim 1.
Furthermore, Ackland discloses an image processor that combines the
signals from the two sub-arrays (FF 3). That is, the signals from the two
sub-arrays comprising photosensors and multiplexing circuitry (FF 2) are
output to the image processor. We find no error in the Examiner’s finding
that Ackland’s “multiplexed signals are then output by part 18 to common
line denoted ‘Output Image’” (Ans. 10).
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
over Ackland. Appellants do no provide arguments for claim 4 separate
from those of claim 1 (App. Br. 18); thus claim 4 falls with claim 1.
As for claim 2, Appellants contend that the pixels of Ackland “do not
individually form a contiguous subset of photosensors” (App. Br. 19).
However, the Examiner finds that Ackland discloses “photosensors that are
next to each other in the column direction” which “demonstrates
contiguous” pixels “in the column and row direction” (Ans. 10). We find no
error in the Examiner’s findings. In particular, we give “contiguous” its
broadest reasonable interpretation as pixels next to other pixels and find that
the pixels in Ackland comprise contiguous pixels (FF 1).
Appeal 2011-011789
Application 11/584,036

9
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2
over Ackland.
35 U.S.C. 103(a)
As for claim 3, Appellants merely argue that “Ozono fails to correct
the defects of Ackland” and then add that “Ozono only teaches a single
subset of photosensors comprising odd and even pixels forming a linear
array” (App. Br. 22). However, as discussed above, we find no defect in
Ackland. Further, Appellants appear to be arguing Ozono alone fails to
teach the limitations of claim 3. However, since the Examiner has rejected
claim 3 over Ackland in view of Ozono, the test for obviousness is not what
the references show individually but what the combined teachings would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As Appellants concede, Ozono
discloses pixels forming a linear array (App. Br. 22). We find no error in the
Examiner’s conclusion that Ackland in view of Ozono would at least have
suggested that the photosensors “together forming at least one linear array”
as recited in claim 3, and thus, we find no error in the rejection of claim 3
over Ackland in view of Ozono.
As for claims 5 and 6, Appellants merely contend that “Hori fails to
correct the defects of Ackland” (App. Br. 25). Similarly, as for claim 7,
Appellants merely contend that “Spears fail to correct the defects of
Ackland” (App, Br. 28). As discussed above, we find no defects with
respect to Ackland. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s
Appeal 2011-011789
Application 11/584,036

10
rejection of claims 5 and 6 over Ackland in further view of Hori and the
rejection of claim 7 over Ackland in further view of Spears.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) and of claims 3 and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb