Sony Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 19, 2022

2021004518 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2022)

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. 15/949,513 04/10/2018 Thomas Richard Ayers 880001-6269-US01 8311 165569 7590 01/19/2022 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (SONY) 790 N WATER ST SUITE 2500 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 EXAMINER HANNETT, JAMES M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2698 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/19/2022 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): DCipdocket@michaelbest.com ajheins@michaelbest.com nbenjamin@michaelbest.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMAS RICHARD AYERS and SHIZUNORI MATSUMOTO Appeal 2021-004518 Application 15/949,513 Technology Center 2600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1-20 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by Appellant, and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1 See Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 5.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sony Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. 2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Apr. 10, 2018 (claiming benefit of US 15/198,817, filed June 30, 2016); Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Apr. 14, 2021; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed July 9, 2021. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed June 16, 2020; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed May 13, 2021. Appeal 2021-004518 Application 15/949,513 2 Hearing was conducted on November 10, 2021. We will add a transcript of the Oral Hearing to the record in due course. We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, “relates generally to image sensors,” and “to reduction of reset spread in image sensors.” Spec. ¶ 1. More specifically, Appellant’s claimed subject matter is directed to image processing methods and image sensors including a pixel circuit with a reset transistor and an amplification transistor, where the pixel circuit outputs a pixel signal. The image sensor(s) also include an amplifier (having a pixel input and an (amplifier) output), where the amplifier amplifies the pixel input (by a gain of 8 or more). The image sensor further includes a capacitor connected to the reset transistor (either a source or a drain of the reset transistor) and to the amplification transistor. The pixel circuit and the amplifier are connected by a first signal line connected to the pixel circuit and to the amplifier. A second signal line connects the reset transistor at either the source or the drain (that is not connected to the capacitor) to the amplifier output. The image sensor additionally includes control circuitry configured to output a reset control signal to a gate of the reset transistor. During a reset operation, the control circuitry provides the reset control signal, which has a waveform “that monotonically changes from a first voltage level, to a second voltage level, to a third voltage level” (claim 1). See Spec. ¶¶ 8-11, 60; Abstr. Claim 1 (directed to a sensor) and claim 11 (directed to a method) are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: Appeal 2021-004518 Application 15/949,513 3 1. An image sensor, comprising: a pixel circuit including a reset transistor and an amplification transistor, the pixel circuit configured to output a pixel signal; an amplifier including a pixel input and an amplifier output, the amplifier configured to amplify a signal received at the pixel input by a gain of 8 or more; a capacitor connected to one of a source or a drain of the reset transistor and to the amplification transistor; a first signal line connected to the pixel circuit and to the amplifier; a second signal line connected to the other of the source or the drain of the reset transistor and to the amplifier output; and control circuitry configured to output a reset control signal to a gate of the reset transistor, wherein, during a reset operation, the reset control signal has a waveform that monotonically changes from a first voltage level, to a second voltage level, to a third voltage level. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Lee et al. (“Lee ’129”) US 7,277,129 B1 Oct. 2, 2007 Lee (“Lee ’754”) US 2004/0174754 A1 Sept. 9, 2004 Yahazu et al. (“Yahazu”) US 2006/0243883 A1 Nov. 2, 2006 Sambonsugi US 2013/0021510 A1 Jan. 24, 2013 Appeal 2021-004518 Application 15/949,513 4 REJECTIONS3 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ’754 and Sambonsugi. See Final Act. 2-4. 2. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 5, 9, 14, 15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ’754, Sambonsugi, and Yahazu. See Final Act. 5-6. 3. The Examiner rejects claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ’754, Sambonsugi, and Lee ’129. See Final Act. 6-7. ANALYSIS Appellant argues independent claim 1, independent claim 11, and dependent claims 2, 3, 6-8, 12, 13, and 16-18 together as a group. See Appeal Br. 12-13. Appellant does not provide separate substantive arguments with respect to the rejections of dependent claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19, and 20, and argues these dependent claims together as a group with claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12-14. We select independent claim 1 as representative of Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2019). Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, and 16-18 The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as independent claim 11, and dependent claims 2, 3, 6-8, 12, 13, and 16-18) as being 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application has an effective filing date after the AIA’s effective date (March 16, 2013), this decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2021-004518 Application 15/949,513 5 obvious over Lee ’754 and Sambonsugi. See Final Act. 2-4; Ans. 7-8. The Examiner relies on Lee ’754 for teaching most of the features of Appellant’s claim 1, including a reset control signal that has a monotonically changing waveform that changes from a first voltage level, to a second voltage level, to a third voltage level. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 8 (citing Lee ’754 ¶¶ 50-53; Figs. 2, 7). The Examiner relies on Sambonsugi for an amplifier having a gain of 8 or more. See Final Act. 4-5 (citing Sambonsugi ¶¶ 156-159). Appellant contends that Lee ’754 and Sambonsugi do not render claim 1 (or the other pending claims) obvious. See Appeal Br. 8-12; Reply Br. 3- 8. Specifically, Appellant contends that Lee ’754 does not teach (and in fact teaches away from) a monotonically changing waveform (that changes from a first voltage level, to a second voltage level, to a third voltage level)-“Lee ’754 does not show a monotonically-changing waveform during a reset operation, and Lee ’754 in fact teaches away from a monotonically-changing waveform during a reset operation.” Appeal Br. 9; see Appeal Br. 8-12; Reply Br. 3-8. Appellant further contends that “[e]ven if one could argue that Lee ’754 FIG. 2 illustrates a waveform that is monotonically changing, Lee ’754 expressly teaches away from the use of this waveform with the circuit cited by the Examiner” because “Lee ’754 expressly contrasts the two waveforms, and finds that the prior art reset method of FIG. 2 has a number of disadvantages.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments and we provide the following analysis for emphasis. Initially, we note that Appellant does not explicitly dispute the Examiner’s fact-finding with respect to the recited circuit structure of claim 1 and Lee ’754. Appellant does not contend that the Appeal 2021-004518 Application 15/949,513 6 features the Examiner found in the prior art are not in-fact disclosed therein. Instead, Appellant contends that one would not have looked to Lee ’754’s Figure 2 to teach or suggest a monotonically changing waveform (a monotonically decreasing step voltage input) because Lee ’754 points out a number of disadvantages with such an input voltage. See Appeal Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 6-7. What the prior art discloses, and whether a reference teaches away from the claimed invention are questions of fact. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034, 1047-48 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc); In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Although Lee ’754 discloses that the use of “continuous-time control voltage waveforms” such as shown in Figure 2 are difficult to implement (as opposed to a discrete or digital signal such as shown in Figure 7), see Lee ’754 ¶ 28 (see also id. ¶¶ 29-30; 55), Lee unequivocally shows that monotonically decreasing step voltage reset signals were known in the prior art and were used for the identical purpose as recited in claim 1. See Lee ’754 ¶ 50; Fig. 2. Further, any such disadvantage (of using an analog voltage signal versus a digital signal) would apply equally to Appellant’s recited reset signal (which is also analog). See Spec. ¶ 60, Fig. 9. We find Lee ’754’s Figure 2 does not teach away from Appellant’s claim 1. 4 4 Nevertheless, our reviewing court guides it is irrelevant that the prior art and the present invention may have different purposes. See Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“A finding that two inventions were designed to resolve different problems . . . is insufficient to demonstrate that one invention teaches away from another.”). Appeal 2021-004518 Application 15/949,513 7 Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred finding that Lee ’754 teaches the disputed features of Appellant’s claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, independent claim 11 and dependent claims 2, 3, 6-8, 12, 13, and 16-18 not separately argued with particularity. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Obviousness Rejections of Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19, and 20 The Examiner rejects claims 4, 5, 9, 14, 15, and 19 as obvious over Lee ’754, Sambonsugi, and Yahazu. See Final Act. 5-6. The Examiner also rejects dependent claims 10 and 20 as obvious over Lee ’754, Sambonsugi, and Lee ’129. See Final Act. 6-7. In each rejection, the Examiner relies on Lee ’754 to teach the reset voltage waveform as recited in independent claims 1 and 11. As discussed with respect to claim 1 (supra), Appellant does not persuasively show that Lee ’754 teaches away from (does not teach) this feature. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19, and 20 for the same reasons set forth for claim 1 (supra). CONCLUSION Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. Appeal 2021-004518 Application 15/949,513 8 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, 16- 18 103 Lee ’754, Sambonsugi 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, 16- 18 4, 5, 9, 14, 15, 19 103 Lee ’754, Sambonsugi, Yahazu 4, 5, 9, 14, 15, 19 10, 20 103 Lee ’754, Sambonsugi, Lee ’129 10, 20 Overall Outcome 1-20 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED