Ex Parte Pascal

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2012

11604247 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte AMIT PASCAL
__________

Appeal 2011-006136
Application 11/604,247
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, LORA M. GREEN, and
FRANCISCO C. PRATS, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, and 14.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Claims 15-21 are also pending, but stand withdrawn from consideration
(App. Br. 1).
App
App

(Spe
“a be
outp
imag
Figu
unit

eal 2011-0
lication 11
The inve
c. 1). Acc
am shapin
ut for a giv
ing device
Figure 3
re 3A is an
(id. at 3).
As taugh
[T]he il
such as
06136
/604,247
ST
ntion relat
ording to t
g unit for
en field o
” (id. at 2
A of the S
illustratio
t by the S
lumination
an LED (m
ATEMEN
es to a dev
he Specifi
homogeni
f view and
-3).
pecificatio
n of an em
pecificatio
unit 310
onochrom
2
T OF TH
ice for pr
cation, the
zing and b
a given d
n is reprod
bodiment
n, as show
, may inc
atic or w
E CASE
oviding in
illuminat
eam shapi
epth of vie
uced belo
of the dis
n in Figur
lude a lig
hite) or an
vivo illum
ion unit m
ng the ligh
w of the in
w:
closed illu
e 3A:
ht source
OLED, a
ination
ay include
t source
-vivo

mination
311
nd a

Appeal 2011-006136
Application 11/604,247

3
beam shaping unit e.g. a micro optical unit 312 for
homogenizing and/or beam shaping the light source 311 output.
According to one embodiment the micro optical unit 312 is
positioned in close proximity to the light source 311 and may
include, for example a refractive element such as a lens 324 and
a diffractive optical element (DOE) 326. The objective of the
lens 324 is to funnel and shape the light beam emitted from the
light source 311 so that the light beam will run parallel (in
relation to a longitudinal axis L of the illumination unit 310)
before it hits the DOE 326. For example, a light beam emitted
from light source 311 e.g. a divergent light beam 327, hits lens
324, bends and become, for example a collimated light beam
327'. The re-directed light beam, such as the collimated light
beam 327' may hit DOE 326 and may be shifted at an angle a
(in relation to a longitudinal axis L of the illumination unit
310).

(Id. at 7-8.)
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal, reads as follows
(emphasis added):
1. A device for in vivo imaging comprising:
a housing;
an imager contained in said housing;
a viewing window;
at least two illumination units located at a first side of the viewing
window within the housing, each of said illumination units comprising:
a light source; and
a beam shaping unit positioned between said light source and said
viewing window for shaping the output beam of said light source passing
through said beam shaping unit to illuminate at a second side of said
viewing window in a combined luminance having a uniform distribution in a
given field of view.

Appeal 2011-006136
Application 11/604,247

4
The following grounds of rejection are before us for review:
I. Claims 1, 6, 7, and 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being rendered obvious by the combination of Kimoto2 and Iddan
’5473 (Ans. 3).
II. Claims 3-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
rendered obvious by the combination of Kimoto and Iddan ’547 as
further combined with any one of Matsumoto,4 Nagata,5 or Hebert6
(Ans. 5).
III. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
rendered obvious by the combination of Kimoto and Iddan ’547 as
further combined with Iddan ’9027 (Ans. 6).

We reverse.

ANALYSIS
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner relies on the
combination of Kimoto and Iddan ’547 (Ans. 3). The Examiner finds,
relying on Figures 7 and 8 of Kimoto, that “instead of tilting the light
sources, reflecting members 72, or beam shapers, can be used” (Ans. 3).

2 Kimoto et al., Pub. No. US 2004/0225189 A1, published November 11,
2004.
3 Iddan, Pub. No. US 2003/0227547 A1, published December 11, 2003.
4 Matsumoto, US Patent No. 5,491,765, issued February 13, 1996.
5 Nagata, US Patent No. 5,923,479, issued July 13, 1999.
6 Herbert, US Patent No. 5,926,318, issued July 20, 1999
7 Iddan, Pub. No. US 2001/0035902 A1, published November 1, 2001.
App
App

“whe
char
obse
over
obse
the o
other

eal 2011-0
lication 11
Kimoto
rein each
acteristics
rvation un
lap at subs
rvation un
bservation
than the c
Figures
06136
/604,247
is drawn to
of the illum
that deviat
it, and the
tantially a
it such tha
range is s
entral por
7 and 8 of
“a capsu
inating u
es from a
lights outp
central po
t an intens
ubstantial
tion of the
Kimoto ar
5
le endosco
nits have a
center of t
ut by the
rtion of th
ity of the l
ly equally
observati
e reproduc
pe system
light dist
he observa
illuminatin
e observat
ight at the
to an inten
on range”
ed below:
” (Kimoto
ribution
tion range
g units ar
ion range
central po
sity at a p
(id. at p. 1

, p. 1, ¶ 2)
of the
e made to
of the
rtion of
ortion
, ¶ 11).

,
App
App

Figu
illum
Kim
light

eal 2011-0
lication 11
re 7 is a sc
inating un
oto, and F
” from the
Accordin
[N]ot on
is caused
the back
not chan
12. The
of the e
central p
predeter
plurality
other tha
same or
the cent
Therefor
brightne
result, i
enables
capturin
06136
/604,247
hematic d
it of a cap
igure 8 is a
capsule (i
g to Kimo
ly the eme
to be ref
surface o
ge incorp
existing il
merged li
ortion of t
mined br
of light e
n the cen
the same b
ral portion
e, the o
ss, thereby
t is possi
to captur
g unit.
iagram “ex
sule endos
n enlarged
d. at p. 1,
to, as sho
rged light
lected by
f the illum
orated in
luminatin
ght and th
he illumin
ightness b
mitting s
tral portion
rightness
by using
verall illu
impartin
ble to pro
e a good
6
plaining e
cope” acc
view “fo
¶¶ 21 and
wn in Figu
but also a
using the
inating un
a structure
g unit is us
e reflecte
ating rang
y the li
ections an
is allowe
as the pre
a single
minating
g balance
vide the
diagnosis

mission o
ording to o
r explainin
22).
res 7 and
part of the
reflecting
it 12. The
of the ill
ed and the
d light. A
e is allow
ght gathe
d the illum
d to acqu
determine
light emit
range h
of the bri
capsule e
image w
f a light fr
ne embod
g emissio
8:
emerged
member 7
refore, the
uminating
light is a
n observ
ed to acqu
red from
inating r
ire roughl
d brightne
ting body
as a uni
ghtness.
ndoscope
ith the im
om an
iment of
n of a
light
2 on
re is
unit
total
ation
ire a
the
ange
y the
ss of
12a.
form
As a
that
age

Appeal 2011-006136
Application 11/604,247

7

(Id. at p. 4, ¶ 67).
The Examiner finds that “Kimoto fails to teach that the light passes
‘through’ the beam shaping unit because the light is reflected off of the beam
shaping unit” (Ans. 4).
The Examiner finds that Iddan ’547 “teaches an optical head assembly
with a dome” (id.). Relying on Figure 3 of Iddan ’547, the Examiner finds
that Iddan ’547 teaches the use of an isolation element, 50, which isolates
the image sensor from any stray light originating from the light source (id.).
The Examiner further finds that Iddan ’547 teaches that the isolation element
may be “an opaque or translucent barrier, a light trap, an optical filter, a
series of separate barriers, or any other suitable structure of any suitable
material” (id.). Thus, according to the Examiner, “the isolation element
shapes the beam of illumination light from the light source to all for better
(more clear) imaging” (id.). The Examiner further finds that Iddan ’547
teaches that one or more optical filters may be placed over the light sources
(id. (citing Iddan ’547)).
Iddan ’547 relates to optical head assemblies (Iddan ’547, p. 1, ¶2).
Figure 3 of Iddan ’547 is reproduced below:
App
App

Figu
¶ 17)

eal 2011-0
lication 11
re 3 illustr
.
Iddan ’5
[O]ptica
circuit b
and is f
embodim
example
other co
The opt
opaque
series of
suitable
Accordin
which m
within th
welding
compon
may be
methods
optical h
06136
/604,247
ates a shel
47 teaches
l isolation
oard] 56,
ixed, at it
ent, the
, extension
mponents)
ical isolat
or transluc
separate b
material
g to one
ay have a
e dome 4
, friction
ents, or by
fixed dir
known in
ead 60, t
led dome w
:
element 5
surroundin
s upper e
optical
s of the l
, or a piec
ion eleme
ent barrie
arriers, or
such a
embodim
ring sha
2 structur
fit, be
other me
ectly to P
the art.
he ring of
8
ith an op
0 may ex
g the imag
nd, agains
isolation
ight eleme
e integrat
nt 50 m
r, a light
any other
s for ex
ent opti
ped bottom
e by, for e
ing held
thods. Th
CB board
During a
isolation
tical head
tend from
e sensor
t dome 4
elements
nts or ima
ed into the
ay be, fo
trap, an o
suitable s
ample op
cal isolati
end, ma
xample, g
by oth
e bottom
56 usin
ssembly o
element 5

assembly
PCB [pr
22, to dom
2. In an
may be,
ge sensor
dome or
r example
ptical filt
tructure o
aque pl
on barrie
y be mou
luing, aco
er assem
end of the
g any sui
f dome 4
0 insures
(id. at p. 1
inted
e 42
other
for
s (or
lens.
, an
er, a
f any
astic.
r 50
nted
ustic
bled
ring
table
2 to
that

,
Appeal 2011-006136
Application 11/604,247

9
optical lens 44 is properly aligned to image sensor 22. Isolation
element 50 also serves to isolate image sensor 22 from stray
light originating from the light source, e.g., 24A and/or 24B.

(Id. at p. 3, ¶ 35.)
Iddan ’547 also teaches that “the light sources may have optical
filters, such as IR reject filters, color filters, or other filters,” such that “[o]ne
or more optical filters may be placed over one or more of the light sources”
(id. at p. 2, ¶ 29).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to the
ordinary artisan “to utilize the isolation element of Iddan ’547 as a
functional equivalent to the reflecting members 72 of Kimoto, as both
designs serve a common purpose - provide better lighting environments for
the imager” (Ans. 4). In the alternative, the Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to “provide optical filters to
the light sources of Kimoto, similarly as they are applied to Iddan ’547, in
order to filter the light to create better lighting for the imager. By filtering
out certain wavelengths of light, the shape of the beam -- for at least those
filtered wavelengths -- has been changed, or shaped” (id. at 4-5).
Appellant argues that the isolation element 50 of Iddan ’547 does not
shape the light such that a second side of said viewing window is illuminated
in a combined luminance having a uniform distribution in a given field of
view (App. Br. 5-6). According to Appellant, the isolation element
influences only a small portion of light, such as that which is disrupted
towards the central axis in order to isolate the image sensor from light (id.).
Appellant further asserts that the isolation element 50 of Iddan ’547 does not
serve a common purpose with the reflector 72 of Kimoto, as the reflecting
Appeal 2011-006136
Application 11/604,247

10
member of Kimoto is to provide a uniform brightness, while the isolation
member of Iddan ’547 isolates the imager (id. at 7).
As to the Examiner’s alternative conclusion of obviousness, Appellant
argues that while Iddan ’547 discloses optical filter, “Iddan ’547 does not
disclose optical filters which can control the light distribution over the field
of view” (id. at 10).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness as to independent claim 1. Kimoto
addresses a problem similar to the problem addressed by the instant
invention, that is, shaping the light from the illumination unit to create a
uniform distribution of light. In the embodiment shown in Figures 7 and 8
of Kimoto, a reflector 72 is used to achieve a uniform distribution of light.
But as noted by the Examiner, Kimoto does not teach the use of a beam
shaping unit positioned between said light source and said viewing window
for shaping the output beam of said light source.
That deficiency, however, is not remedied by Iddan ’547. As taught
by Iddan ’547, the optical isolator 50 insures that optical lens is properly
aligned to image sensor, and also serves to isolate image sensor from stray
light originating from the light source. The Examiner does not provide any
clear or specific evidence or scientific reasoning of how the optical isolator
of Iddan ’547 would serve the same purpose as the reflector of Kimoto, that
is, shaping the light to achieve a uniform distribution of light. Similarly, the
Examiner has not provided specific evidence or explained how placing
optical filters, such as IR reject filters, color filters, or other filters, as taught
by Iddan ’547 over the light sources would shape the light to achieve a
Appeal 2011-006136
Application 11/604,247

11
uniform distribution of light. We thus, reverse the rejection of claim 1, as
well as the claims dependent thereon, that are, claims 6, 7, and 9-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being rendered obvious by the combination of Kimoto
and Iddan ’547.
Moreover, as the Examiner did not rely upon Matsumoto, Nagata,
Hebert, or Iddan ’902 to remedy the above deficiencies of the combination
of Kimoto and Iddan ’547, we also reverse the rejection of claims 3-5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being rendered obvious by the combination of Kimoto
and Iddan ’547 as further combined with any one of Matsumoto, Nagata, or
Hebert, as well as the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being rendered obvious by the combination of Kimoto and Iddan ’547 as
further combined with Iddan ’902.

REVERSED

lp