Ex Parte Trevino

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 29, 2002

08720563 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 29, 2002)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte ROY TREVINO
__________
Appeal No. 1999-2690
Application 08/720,563
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before RUGGIERO, LALL, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1-9, which are all of the claims pending in the present
application. An amendment filed September 21, 1998 after final
rejection, which amended claim 4, was approved for entry by the
Examiner.
Appeal No. 1999-2690
Application 08/720,563
2
The disclosed invention relates to a method and apparatus
for providing variable exposure time in each row of complementary
metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) sensors in a CMOS sensor array.
A pair of rotating “pointers” are utilized to independently
trigger the resetting and reading-out of the charges contained in
each of the cells in each row of the sensor array.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as
follows:
1. A method for controlling a CMOS sensor array containing
a first line of CMOS sensor cells arranged in a linear fashion,
comprising the steps of:
receiving a clock signal and generating a first address;
generating a line reset signal to said first line of CMOS
sensor cells based on said first address;
calculating line read delay based on said first address and
an offset value;
generating a line read signal to said first line of CMOS
sensor cells after said line read delay; and,
generating a set of pixel values containing a pixel value
for each CMOS sensor cell in said first line of CMOS sensor
cells.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Wilder et al. (Wilder) 5,262,871 Nov. 16, 1993
Appeal No. 1999-2690
Application 08/720,563
3
Claims 1-9 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Wilder.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 10) and
Answer (Paper No. 11) for the respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of
anticipation relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant’s arguments
set forth in the Brief along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the Wilder reference fully meets the invention as set forth
in claims 1-9. Accordingly, we affirm.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well
as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the
recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Appeal No. 1999-2690
Application 08/720,563
4
Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to independent claim 4, addressed first in the
Answer, the Examiner indicates (Answer, pages 3 and 4) how the
various limitations are read on the disclosure of Wilder. In
particular, the Examiner points to the illustrations in Wilder’s
Figures 2, 5A, 6-8, and 12A and the accompanying description at
columns 10-18, 20, and 21. In our view, the Examiner’s analysis
is sufficiently reasonable that we find that the Examiner has as
least satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
anticipation. The burden is, therefore, upon Appellant to come
forward with evidence and/or arguments which persuasively rebut
the Examiner’s prima facie case. Only those arguments actually
made by Appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the Brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Appellant’s arguments in response focus on the Examiner’s
alleged misinterpretation of the Wilder reference, which, in
Appellant’s view, has no disclosure of any circuitry which allows
“. . . the reading of each pixel value in a set of CMOS sensor
Appeal No. 1999-2690
Application 08/720,563
5
cells without merging the read signals.” (Brief, page 4). After
careful review of the Wilder reference in light of the arguments
of record, however, we are in agreement with the Examiner’s
position as stated in the Answer.
Initially, we find that Appellant’s arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. It is axiomatic that,
in proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification, and that claim language should be read in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Moreover, limitations are not to
be read into the claims from the specification. In re Van Geuns,
988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) citing
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989).
Although Appellant asserts that Wilder’s disclosed
circuitry, pointing to the illustration in Wilder’s Figure 6, has
only a single horizontal sense line for each pixel in a row
thereby prohibiting the simultaneous reading of each individual
pixel, we find no language in appealed claim 4 which requires the
simultaneous reading of sensor cells. Further, it is our view
Appeal No. 1999-2690
Application 08/720,563
6
that, even assuming arguendo that the language of claim 4 could
be construed as calling for simultaneous cell read out, there is
nothing in the claim language which precludes the simultaneous
read out by merging or combining pixel values.
We are in further agreement with the Examiner (Answer,
page 6) that Appellant’s arguments ignore various portions of the
disclosure of Wilder which clearly teaches the invention as
claimed. While Wilder suggests an embodiment in which groups of
pixel values are read by merging signals into a single superpixel
value, other embodiments are also suggested in Wilder. At column
6, lines 4-64, Wilder discloses various read out techniques
dependent on desired resolution including one cell at a time,
more than one element per row at a time, and more than one
element per column at a time.
We also find to be unpersuasive Appellant’s further
contention that Wilder, which allegedly discloses only the
resetting of all of the horizontal sense lines, lacks a teaching
of circuitry which permits the resetting of each cell array line
independently as claimed. As with Appellant’s earlier argument
related to simultaneous cell read out, however, we find no
language in the claims which require the independent resetting of
sensor cells or any language which precludes the resetting of all
Appeal No. 1999-2690
Application 08/720,563
7
sense lines. In any case, Wilder, as pointed out by the Examiner
(Answer, page 7), provides a clear teaching of the resetting of
each selected pixel to a predetermined starting initial voltage
(Wilder, column 12, lines 60-62).
Similarly, Appellant’s argument that Wilder lacks a teaching
of independent control of the integration time of each row of the
cell array is not reflected in the language of appealed claim 4.
We also agree with the Examiner that, notwithstanding the lack of
any recitation in the claims directed to independent integration
time control, Wilder provides a clear disclosure of such a
feature at column 17, line 46 to column 18, line 32.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the
claimed limitations are present in the disclosure of Wilder, the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 4, as well as
dependent claims 5-8, not separately argued by Appellant, is
sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 based on Wilder, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims, and dependent
claims 2 and 3 not separately argued by Appellant, as well. In
asserting the patentability of claims 1 and 9, Appellant
Appeal No. 1999-2690
Application 08/720,563
8
reiterates the argument directed to Wilder’s lack of disclosure
of simultaneous sensor cell read out, an argument which we found
unpersuasive for all of the reasons discussed supra.
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( b) rejection of all of the claims on appeal. Therefore,
the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-9 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JFR:pgg
Appeal No. 1999-2690
Application 08/720,563
9
Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman
12400 Wilshire Boulevard
7th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025