Ex Parte Kwon

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 23, 2012

11293617 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte OH-BONG KWON
____________

Appeal 2011-001157
Application 11/293,617
Technology Center 2600
____________

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

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001157
Application 11/293,617

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-3, 6-12, and 21-30 (App. Br. 5). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
The Invention
Exemplary Claim 1 follows:
1. An image sensor for reducing variation of control
signal level, the image sensor comprising:

a unit pixel supplied with a fixed power voltage
and configured to convert an inputted signal into an
electrical signal; and

a control block supplied with both the first power
voltage and a second power voltage, wherein the control
block is configured to provide a control signal to the unit
pixel;

wherein the first and second power voltages are
different;

wherein the control block includes a conversion
unit configured to receive a signal under the second
power voltage , to receive the first power voltage, and to
output the control signal under the first power voltage;

wherein the first power voltage is supplied from an
analog block, and wherein the second power voltage is
supplied from a digital block; and

wherein the conversion unit includes at least one of
an inverter structure, a resistor, a transistor, or a
differential amplifier.
Appeal 2011-001157
Application 11/293,617

3

Claims 1-3 and 6-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Masuyama (U.S. Patent No. 6,674,471 B1, issued January
6, 2004) in view of AAPA (Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art) (Ans. 3-7).
Claims 21 and 24-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Masuyama (Ans. 7-11).
Claims 22, 23, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Masuyama in view of AAPA (Ans. 11-13).

ISSUE
Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Masuyama
and AAPA teaches or would have suggested “a conversion unit configured
to receive a signal under the second power voltage, to receive the first power
voltage, and to output the control signal under the first power voltage” and
“wherein the first and second power voltages are different,” as recited in
independent claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Appellant and the Examiner agree that “ ‘Masuyama fails to disclose a
conversion unit for outputting control signals under the first power voltage
wherein the first power voltage is also used by the unit pixel’” (App. Br. 20
quoting Final Office Action p. 3). Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that it
would have been obvious in light of the AAPA to modify Masuyama’s
Appeal 2011-001157
Application 11/293,617

4
conversion unit to have the configuration of voltages recited in claim 1 (Ans.
5).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed modification would
render Masuyama unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of suppressing
blooming because it “would have a frustrating effect on draining overflow
charge” (App. Br. 24). We agree with Appellant. Masuyama teaches that
“an excessive quantity of charges . . . can be discharged toward a first power
supply VDD . . . [and a]s a result, the overflow of charges within a pixel into
an adjacent pixel can be prevented or at least drastically reduced, thus
suppressing the generation of blooming” (col. 3, ll. 20-26). Masuyama
further teaches that to achieve this purpose, “VDD1 is supposed to be larger
than VDD” (col. 8, ll. 33-34). That is, if the voltage configuration were
changed as proposed by the Examiner, Masuyama would no longer
discharge overflow charge to suppress blooming. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 or the claims dependent
therefrom (i.e., claims 2, 3, 6-12).
Appellant also argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 21-
30 as obvious for the same reasons set forth for claim 1 (App. Br. 24).
Appellant’s argument, however, is not commensurate with the scope of
claims 21-30 because unlike claim 1, claims 21-30 do not require the first
and second power voltages to be different (see Ans. 13-15). Accordingly,
we find no error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 21-30.

Appeal 2011-001157
Application 11/293,617

5
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21-30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) and reverse the rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
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-IN-PART

llw