SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 31, 2021

2020002967 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2021)

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.
15/951,470 04/12/2018 Victor LENCHENKOV APT2014-0071CD01US 5017
132194 7590 03/31/2021
SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC (AS)
5005 E. McDowell Road
Maildrop A700
Phoenix, AZ 85008
EXAMINER
SANDVIK, BENJAMIN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2826
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2021 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):
ipdocket@iptech.law
patents@onsemi.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VICTOR LENCHENKOV and HAMID SOLEIMANI
Appeal 2020-002967
Application 15/951,470
Technology Center 2800
BEFORE BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, RAE LYNN P. GUEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 13. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002967
Application 15/951,470

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below:
1. An image sensor, comprising:
a semiconductor layer, and;
a single light absorber layer coupled with the
semiconductor layer at a pixel of the image sensor, the light
absorber layer configured to absorb a predetermined range of
wavelengths of incident light and to substantially prevent all of
the predetermined range of wavelengths of incident light from
entering the semiconductor layer;
wherein the light absorber layer is configured to heat a
region of the semiconductor layer.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Nikoobakht US 2010/0127172 A1 May 27, 2010

REJECTION
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Nikoobakht.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). Upon review of the
Appeal 2020-002967
Application 15/951,470

3
evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record, we find
that the preponderance of evidence supports Appellant’s position.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection on appeal essentially for
the reasons set forth in the record by Appellant, and add the following for
emphasis.
Appellant’s Figure 1 is reproduced below, with annotations.

Figure 1 shows a cross section view of an image sensor according to
Appellant’s disclosure.
Appeal 2020-002967
Application 15/951,470

4
With reference to Appellant’s Figure 1 (above), Appellant’s claim 1
recites an image sensor 120 having a semiconductor layer 34 (Figure 1,
Spec.¶ 59); a single light absorber layer 16 (Figure 1, Spec. ¶ 65), coupled
with the semiconductor layer at a pixel 10 of the image sensor 120 (Figure 1,
¶ 58). The light absorber layer 16 is configured to absorb a
predetermined range of wavelengths of incident light (Spec. ¶ 65) and to
substantially prevent all of the predetermined range of wavelengths of
incident light from entering the semiconductor layer 34 (Spec.¶ 65).
We refer to the Examiner’s statement of the rejection made on pages
2–3 of the Final Office Action. Therein, the Examiner relies, inter alia,
upon Nikoobakht’s Figure 1 for showing a light absorber layer 104 that
meets the claim limitations.
Appellant argues that because there are openings in layer 104 (as
shown in Figure 1B of Nikoobakht which Appellant reproduces on page 14
of the Appeal Brief), Nikoobakht’s layer 104 is not configured to absorb a
predetermined range of wavelengths of incident light and to substantially
prevent all of the predetermined range of wavelengths of incident light from
entering the semiconductor layer as recited in Appellant’s claim 1. Appeal
Br. 14–15.
In response, the Examiner admits that the openings in layer 104 of
Nikoobakht allow for light to pass, but states that the limitation of “incident
light” was interpreted to mean only the light that is incident on the material
of the light absorbing layer itself, and does not include light that passes
through the openings of layer 104 of Nikoobakht. Ans. 4. We agree with
Appellant that this interpretation is flawed. Reply Br. 4–5. The term
“incident light” refers to incident electromagnetic radiation detected by the
Appeal 2020-002967
Application 15/951,470

5
image sensor. Spec. ¶ 3. As shown in Appellant’s Figure 1 above, lens 22
and/or light guide 26 refracts, focuses and/or otherwise conveys light
towards the pixel 10 (Spec. ¶ 63), and it is this light that is “incident light”.
As such, it is not associated with the material of the light absorbing layer
which it reaches, but is associated with the incident electromagnetic
radiation that is detected by the image sensor and conveyed towards pixel
10. As such, the incident light in Nikoobakht is conveyed and reaches layer
104, and also passes through the openings therein, which does not meet the
requirements of claim 1. Appeal Br. 14–15.
In view of the above, we reverse the rejection.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 13 102(a)(1) 1, 13

REVERSED