Ex Parte Lai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 1, 2016

12689905 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/689,905 01119/2010 60601 7590 04/04/2016 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P,C, 4000 Legato Road Suite 310 FAIRFAX, VA 22033 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Chun-Hung Lai 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 0941/2387PUS1 6757 EXAMINER JEBARI, MOHAMMED ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 04/04/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHUN-HUNG LAI, CHI-XIANG TSENG, CHEN-WEI LU, and I-HSIU CHEN Appeal2014-004953 Application 12/689,905 Technology Center 2400 Before LARRY J. HUME, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. 1 We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants identify VisEra Technologies Company Limited as the real party in interest. (Br. 2.) Appeal2014-004953 Application 12/689,905 THE INVENTION Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a 3D color image sensor. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A three dimensional (3D) color image sensor, compnsmg: a semiconductor substrate, having a plurality of first photodiodes and a plurality of second photodiodes, and a wiring layer formed under the first photodiodes and the second photodiodes; and a light filter array layer disposed on the first photodiodes and the second photodiodes, having a plurality of color filter patterns and a plurality of (infrared) IR light filter patterns, wherein each of the IR light filter patterns receives depth information of 3D color image of an object and corresponds to the first photodiode, each of the color filter patterns receives color image information of 3D color image of the object and corresponds to the second photodiode and a size of every single one of the IR light filter patterns is larger than a size of every single one of the color filter patterns. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4--9, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2008/0067330 Al, pub. Mar. 20, 2008), Tsuchida (US 2010/0177231 Al, pub. July 15, 2010), and Bamji (US 7,375,803 Bl, issued May 20, 2008). (Final Act. 3-6.) The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Zigadlo et al. (US 6,292,212 Bl, issued Sept. 18, 2001) ("Zigadlo"). (Final Act. 7-8.) 2 Appeal2014-004953 Application 12/689,905 The Examiner rejected claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Lee et al. (US 2010/0033611 Al, pub. Feb. 11, 2010) ("Lee"). (Final Act. 8-9.) The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Liu (US 2009/0325086 Al, pub. Dec. 31, 2009). (Final Act. 9-10.) The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Maeda et al. (US 2003/0128889 Al, pub. July 10, 2003) ("Maeda"). (Final Act. 10-11.) The Examiner rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Aotsuka (US 2004/0105017 Al, pub. June 3, 2004). (Final Act. 11.) The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and JungChak Ahn et al., Advanced image sensor technology for pixel scaling down toward 1. OÂµm (Invited), (IEEE 2008) ("Ahn"). (Final Act. 11-12.) ISSUES ON APPEAL Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following issues: 2 Issue One: Whether the combination of Yamamoto, Tsuchida, and Bamji teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitation: "a size of 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 25, 2013), Final Office Action (mailed May 31, 2013), and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Jan. 15, 2014) for the respective details. We also note Appellants did not file a Reply Brief to rebut the Examiner's findings and legal conclusions. 3 Appeal2014-004953 Application 12/689,905 every single one of the IR light filter patterns is larger than a size of every single one of the color filter patterns," and the commensurate limitation recited in independent claim 17. (Br. 9-10.) Issue Two: Whether the combination of Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Zigadlo teaches or suggests the dependent claim 3 limitation, "wherein a ratio of a size of the IR light filter pattern to a size of the color filter pattern is greater than 10." (Br. 10-12.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments and we adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-12); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 16-17). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and emphasize the following. Issue One Appellants argue "Yamamoto, Tsuchida and Bamji fail to disclose that a size of every single one of the IR light filter patterns is larger than a size of every single one of the color filter patterns, as recited in claims 1 and 17." (Br. 9.) However, we note the Examiner correctly finds that Bamji teaches or suggests this limitation: Bamji depicts in (fig. 1 C) and states in (col. 3 lines 50- 67) that IR-NIR pixels are physically larger than R, G, or B pixels, and since the filters are provided on a per pixel basis, then, the size of the IR-filters will be larger than the size of the color filters. 4 Appeal2014-004953 Application 12/689,905 (Ans. 16.) Therefore, on this record, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 1 7. Issue Two The Examiner primarily relies on Bamji and Zigadlo as teaching or suggesting the ratio of the IR light filter pattern size to the color filter pattern size greater than 10. (Final Act. 8; Bamji Fig. IC, col. 3, 11. 54--56; Zigadlo Fig. 5, col. 5, 11. 22-30.) Appellants argue the ratios disclosed in each of the individual references is less than 10 and, because the filter patterns of the two references are different, "one skilled in the art cannot use nor would have no rational reason to use [them in combination.]" (Br. 10-11.) This argument is unpersuasive to the extent it attacks the references individually, whereas the Examiner relies upon the combined teachings and suggestions of the combination ofBamji and Zigadlo. (Ans. 16-17.) See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee's invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F .2d 413, 425 (CCP A 1981 ). Furthermore, as held in In re Keller: To justify combining reference teachings in support of a rejection it is not necessary that a device shown in one reference can be physically inserted into the device shown in the other. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. 5 Appeal2014-004953 Application 12/689,905 Id. (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, on this record, and lacking any evidence or persuasive argument to the contrary, we agree with the Examiner's findings and legal conclusion of obviousness: Even though the ratio of a size of IR-filters to a size of color filters is not greater than 10, but it would have been obvious for one having skill in the art at the time of invention to augment the ratio and make it even larger than the one explained above in order to have higher sensitivity for IR light. (Ans. 17.) CONCLUSIONS For the reasons discussed above, and on this record, we sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 1 and 17 over Yamamoto, Tsuchida, and Bamji, and of claim 3 over Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Zigadlo. We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 4--9 and 18-20 over the combination of Yamamoto, Tsuchida, and Bamji; of claim 2 over the combination of Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Zigadlo; of claims 10- 12 over the combination of Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Lee; of claim 13 over the combination of Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Liu; of claim 14 over the combination of Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Maeda; of claim 15 over the combination of Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Aotsuka; and of claim 16 over the combination of Yamamoto, Tsuchida, Bamji, and Ahn, which rejections are not argued separately with particularity. (App. Br. 10-13.) DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20. 6 Appeal2014-004953 Application 12/689,905 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7