SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 4, 2021

2020003617 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 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.
15/480,521 04/06/2017 Bart CREMERS ONS02382US 4601
129948 7590 10/04/2021
SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC (VT)
5005 E. McDowell Road, MD A700
Phoenix, AZ 85008
EXAMINER
CAMARGO, MARLY S.B.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2021 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):
patents@onsemi.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BART CREMERS
Appeal 2020-003617
Application 15/480,521
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, 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 1–8, 12, and 14–18. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

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. 2.
Appeal 2020-003617
Application 15/480,521
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s Specification explains that the claimed subject matter
relates to “imaging devices with image sensor pixels.” Spec. 1:3–4.
Claim 1, reproduced below, with annotations indicating the disputed
limitations, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. An image sensor comprising:
an array of image sensor pixels;
data converters that receive signals from the array of
image sensor pixels;
a plurality of vertical readout lines coupling the array of
image sensor pixels to the data converters; and
a plurality of diagonal readout lines coupling the array
of image sensor pixels to the data converters.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Minagawa et al. (“Minagawa”) US 2013/0057743 A1 Mar. 7, 2013
Zarnowski et al. (“Zarnowski”) US 2010/0149393 A1 June 17, 2010

REJECTION2
Claims 1–8, 12, and 14–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Minagawa and Zarnowski. Ans. 4–19.

2 Claims 9–11 and 20–22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected
base claim, but also indicated as being allowable if rewritten in independent
form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening
claims. Ans. 19; Appeal Br. 2. Claims 13 and 19 were cancelled. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003617
Application 15/480,521
3
OPINION
The Examiner finds Minagawa teaches many of the limitations of
claim 1, including, inter alia, a plurality of vertical readout lines coupling an
array of image sensor pixels to data converters. See Ans. 4–5, 21 (citing
Minagawa Fig. 1, ¶¶ 81–83, 85, 94, 123). However, the Examiner finds
Minagawa does not expressly disclose a plurality of diagonal readout lines
coupling an array of image sensor pixels to data converters. See Ans. 5.
The Examiner relies instead on Zarnowski as teaching this limitation. See
Ans. 5–6. Specifically, the Examiner finds Figure 1 of Zarnowski shows a
3-x-3 sub-pixel array forming a color pixel is a diagonal pattern with red,
green, and blue color sub-pixels, where the sub-pixels are oriented
diagonally to improve visual resolution. See Ans. 5, 23–24 (citing
Zarnowski Fig. 1, ¶¶ 8, 34, 36–37). The Examiner further finds Figure 8 of
Zarnowski shows diagonal columns, where each diagonal column includes
sub-pixels, where each diagonal column is connected to a converter, and
where the diagonal columns teach or suggest the claimed plurality of
diagonal readout lines coupling an array of image sensor pixels to data
converters. See Ans. 5–6, 24–25 (citing Zarnowski Fig. 8, ¶¶ 48–56).
According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated, at the time of the claimed invention, to modify Minagawa’s
readout circuit to include the additional diagonal readout lines disclosed in
Zarnowski to improve the visual resolution as also disclosed by Zarnowski.
See Ans. 6–7 (citing Zarnowski ¶¶ 8, 34, 51–52).
Appellant argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
combined Minagawa and Zarnowski as the Examiner has combined them to
arrive at the claimed invention because Minagawa expressly describes a
rectangular array of pixels with vertical column lines that are parallel to each
Appeal 2020-003617
Application 15/480,521
4
pixel column in the rectangular array, while Zarnowski expressly describes a
diagonally oriented array of pixels with diagonal column lines that are
parallel to each pixel column in the diagonally oriented array. See Appeal
Br. 8–9. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because the argument is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Specifically, claim 1 does not
limit the shape of the array of image sensor pixels to any particular shape
(such as a rectangular array or diagonally oriented array), nor does claim 1
limit the orientation of the vertical and diagonal column lines with respect to
the orientation of the pixels in the array.
Even assuming arguendo that Appellant’s argument was
commensurate with the scope of claim 1, the argument is still not persuasive
because it focuses on one specific way to combine the structures disclosed in
Minagawa and Zarnowski rather than the suggestion by Zarnowski of using
a diagonal readout line to read out data from a pixel array in order to
improve visual resolution. Indeed, the Supreme Court made clear that when
considering obviousness, “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Further, as the Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S.
at 416. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that combining vertical
readout lines with diagonal readout lines within an image sensor would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the
claimed invention, in light of the combination of Minagawa and Zarnowski.
Appeal 2020-003617
Application 15/480,521
5
Appellant additionally argues Minagawa fails to disclose or suggest
either a diagonal readout line or interpolation in the diagonal direction. See
Appeal Br. 10–12. These arguments are not persuasive either because, as
previously discussed above, the Examiner relies upon Zarnowski rather than
Minagawa for teaching or suggesting a plurality of diagonal readout lines
coupling an array of image sensor pixels to data converters as recited in
claim 1. See Ans. 5–6.
Appellant further argues both Minagawa and Zarnowski use signal
readout lines that are parallel to the arrangement of the pixels and neither
Minagawa nor Zarnowski teach or suggest signal readout lines that are
“different” (i.e., non-parallel) to the arrangement of pixels. See Appeal
Br. 12–13. This argument is not persuasive either, as this argument is also
not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. In other words, the scope of
claim 1 encompasses readout lines that are either parallel to the array of
image sensor pixels or not parallel to the array of image sensor pixels.
Further, even assuming arguendo that Appellant’s argument was
commensurate with the scope of claim 1, Appellant has not shown that
modifying the readout lines disclosed in either Minagawa or Zarnowski to be
not parallel to the array of image sensor pixels would either be beyond the
capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art or would result in a
difference in function or give unexpected results. In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309,
314 (CCPA 1965) (“Appellants have failed to show that the change [in the
claimed invention] as compared to [the reference], result in a difference in
function or give unexpected results,” emphasis in original).
Appellant additionally argues the Examiner’s finding with respect to
Zarnowski’s use of an orthogonal display having display pixels arranged in
rectangular rows and columns is irrelevant “since claim 1 relates only to the
Appeal 2020-003617
Application 15/480,521
6
readout scheme of the image capture but not the display scheme.” See
Appeal Br. 13–14 (emphasis omitted). However, this argument does not
appear to be relevant to the rejection, as the Examiner finds that Zarnowski
discloses a pixel array where the sub-pixels are oriented diagonally and
further discloses diagonal columns connected to a converter. See Ans. 5–6,
23–25 (citing Zarnowski Figs. 1, 8, ¶¶ 8, 34, 36–37, 48–50, 52–56). Further,
it does not appear that Appellant contests this finding by the Examiner. See
Appeal Br. 8, 13–14 (“Zarnowski shows in FIG. 1 a diagonally oriented
pixel array and further shows in FIG. 8 where a column of diagonally
oriented pixels is coupled to a sense node[.] . . . Zarnowski describes
capturing an image using diagonally oriented pixels[.]”).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in
the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 and of claims 2–8, 12, and 14–18, which Appellant does not
separately argue. See Appeal Br. 9, 14–15.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 12,
14–18
103 Minagawa,
Zarnowski
1–8, 12,
14–18

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-003617
Application 15/480,521
7
AFFIRMED