Li-Wei Chen et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 4, 2019

14722730 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2019)

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.
14/722,730 05/27/2015 Li-Wei CHEN 0941/3131PUS1 9535
60601 7590 09/04/2019
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
EXAMINER
KIM, SU C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2899
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2019 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):
MAILROOM@MG-IP.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
——————
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
——————
Ex parte LI-WEI CHEN, CHI-HAN LIN, and ZONG-RU TU
——————
Appeal 2017-010762
Application 14/722,730
Technology Center 2800
——————
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, JAMES A. WORTH, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 brings this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–5, 9–11, 13, 15, 16, 20, and 21
in the above-identified application. We affirm in part.

1 e appeal record includes the following: Specification, May 27, 2015
(“Spec.”); Final Office Action, Aug. 10, 2016 (“Final Action”); Appeal
Brief, Jan. 13, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, June 8, 2017
(“Answer”). Appellant did not submit a Reply Brief.
2 Appellant is the applicant VisEra Technologies Company Limited, which
according to Appellant is also the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-010762
Application 14/722,730

2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention relates to “an image sensor having microlenses
with different sizes.” Spec. ¶ 1. As a representative illustration, we reproduce
Figure 1 below:

Figure 1 is a schematic view of image sensor 1, which includes sensing layer
10, filter units 20, microlens array 30, and grid structure 40. Id. ¶¶ 18–19.
Sensing layer 10, which extends along reference plane P1, includes substrate
11, sensing units 12, and blocking structure 13. Id. ¶ 20. Filter units 20,
which may be color filters, are disposed above each sensing unit 12. Id.
¶¶ 23–24. Filter units 20 are separated from each other by grid structure 40,
which includes a first grid (41) and a second grid (42). Id. ¶¶ 29–30. Above
sensing layer 10 and filter units 20 is microlens array 30, which includes first
microlenses 31 and second microlenses 32. Id. ¶¶ 27, 32. e diameter of
first microlens 31 is greater than the diameter of second microlens 32. Id.
¶ 34.
Appeal 2017-010762
Application 14/722,730

3
Independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. An image sensor, comprising:
a sensing layer;
a first filter unit disposed on the sensing layer;
a plurality of second filter units disposed on the sensing
layer;
a grid structure connected to and around the first filter
unit and the second filter units, wherein the grid structure
comprises a first grid and a second grid, and the first filter unit
is connected to and located between the first grid and the
second grid;
a first microlens disposed on the first filter unit;
a plurality of second microlenses, respectively disposed
on the second filter units, and adjacent to the first microlens,
wherein a diameter of the first microlens is greater than a
diameter of each of the second microlenses, and the diameter of
the first microlens is equal to or greater than combined widths
of the first grid and the first filter unit, and
wherein a first cross section of the first grid and a second
cross section of the second grid perpendicular to the sensing
layer are elongated, the first cross section and the second cross
section respectively extend along two directions, which are
inclined relative to the sensing layer, and the first cross section
and the second cross section are reflectionally symmetrical
about a center of the first filter unit.
Appeal Br. 17 (emphasis of key phrase added). Claims 11 and 21 are also
independent. Id. at 18–20. Claims 2–5, 9, and 10 depend from claim 1; and
claims 13, 15, 16, and 20 depend from claim 11. Id. at 17–20.
Appeal 2017-010762
Application 14/722,730

4
e Examiner’s grounds of rejection are as follows:
Rejection 1: claims 1, 10, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Oishi3 in view of Kim.4 Answer 2–7.
Rejection 2: claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Oishi in view of Kim and Wang.5 Id. at 8–9.
Rejection 3: claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Oishi in view of Kim and Suzuki.6 Id. at 9–10.
Rejection 4: claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Oishi in view of Kim and Tsai.7 Id. at 10–12.
Rejection 5: claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Oishi in view of Kim and Otsuka.8 Id. at 12–13.
Rejection 6: claims 11 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Awazu9 in view of Oishi. Id. at 13–17.
Rejection 7: claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Awazu in view of Oishi and Tsai. Id. at 17.
Rejection 8: claims 15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Awazu in view of Oishi and Otsuka. Id. at 17–19.

3 Oishi, US 2015/0244951 A1 (published Aug. 27, 2015) (“Oishi”).
4 Kim et al., US 2010/0009493 A1 (published Jan. 14, 2010) (“Kim”).
5 Wang et al., US 2015/0061061 A1 (published Mar. 5, 2015) (“Wang”).
6 Suzuki et al., US 2015/0084144 A1 (published Mar. 26, 2015) (“Suzuki”).
7 Tsai et al., US 2013/0307107 A1 (published Nov. 21, 2013) (“Tsai”).
8 Otsuka et al., US 2012/0147208 A1 (published June 14, 2012) (“Otsuka”).
9 Awazu, US 2011/0221947 A1 (published Sept. 15, 2011) (“Awazu”).
Appeal 2017-010762
Application 14/722,730

5
DISCUSSION
Rejections 1–3, 4, and 5 (claims 1–5, 9, 10, 21)
e Examiner finds that Oishi discloses all the limitations of claim 1,
except that Oishi “fails to explicitly disclose [that] a diameter of the first
microlens is greater than a diameter of each of the second microlenses.”
Final Action 3. However, the Examiner finds that Kim teaches using
differently sized microlenses for different pixel colors, and thus would have
motivated a skilled artisan to select a different lens sizes to optimize for each
wavelength. Id. at 4; Answer 3–4. In particular, the Examiner finds that in
Oishi, “the diameter of the first microlens is equal to . . . combined widths of
the first grid and the first filter unit.” Final Action 3 (citing Oishi Fig. 11).
Responding to the rejection, Appellant presents an annotated version
of Oishi’s Figure 11, which we reproduce below:

Oishi’s Figure 11 depicts the cross-sectional view of a pixel array. Oishi
¶ 94. e pixel array channels light through a set of micro lenses (46) and
Appeal 2017-010762
Application 14/722,730

6
ultimately to a set of photodiodes inside the structure (40). See id. ¶¶ 96,
100. Between lenses 46 and photodiodes 40, there is a waveguide (31), and
on its upper surface is a set of gridlines (50) inside a set of color filters (43).
Id. ¶¶ 93, 95–96.
To the original Figure 11, Appellant adds annotations to indicate two
widths: D1, which is the width of micro lens 46 and color filter 43, and D2,
which is the width of a single grid line 50. See Appeal Br. 8. Although the
width of each filter 43 overlaps part of each grid line 50, Appellant
calculates the “combined widths” simply by adding D1 and D2. According
to Appellant, “[t]he diameter (D1) . . . is certainly less than combined widths
(D1+D2).” Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner annotates Figure 11 differently, as we
reproduce below:

Appeal 2017-010762
Application 14/722,730

7
In the Examiner’s annotated version of Figure 11, width B corresponds to
Appellant’s D1, and represents the width of microlens 46. See Answer 3.
However, unlike Appellant, the “combined widths” A is the distance from
one edge of a grid to the corresponding edge on the far side of the next grid,
“measured at the top surface of layer 31.” Id. According to the Examiner,
this “would necessarily be equal to the diameter of the first microlens (46)
labeled ‘B’ due to the symmetry of the device unit pixels as seen in Oishi
Fig. 10.” Id.
We agree with the Examiner that Oishi teaches “combined widths” of
the first grid (50) and the first filter unit (43) that equal the width of
microlens 46. In an ex parte appeal, “claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Translogic
Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). In the portion of the Specification
describing Figure 1 (reproduced above), the inventors identify W2a as “the
combined widths . . . of the first grid 41 (or the second grid 42) and the first
filter unit 20a.” Spec. ¶ 36. Like the Examiner’s rejection, the inventors
measure the “combined widths” from one edge of a grid (e.g., 41) to the
corresponding far edge of the next grid (e.g., 42).
One significant difference between Oishi’s Figure 11 and Figure 1 of
the Specification is that in Oishi, color filters 43 overlap grids 50, whereas in
Figure 1 of the Specification, there is no overlap. Despite this difference, it
would have been reasonable for a person of ordinary skill in the art to
measure the “combined widths” in the same way as the inventors did in the
Specification. is avoids double counting any part of the color filter when
making the same calculation with respect to adjacent color filters. erefore,
Appeal 2017-010762
Application 14/722,730

8
under the claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation, Oishi teaches that “the
diameter of the first microlens is equal to or greater than combined widths of
the first grid and the first filter unit,” as recited in claims 1 and 21.
Appellant also argues that because Oishi does not indicate that the
drawings are to scale, the Examiner improperly relies on the proportions of
features in Oishi’s Figure 11. Appeal Br. 8 (citing MPEP § 2125).
We disagree. A rejection cannot rely on a drawing to “define the
precise proportions of the elements” or to “show particular sizes if the
specification is completely silent on the issue.” Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc.
v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000). e Examiner does
not do this; rather, the Examiner determines that, given the regular grid
structure shown in Figures 10 and 11 and described in the text, the microlens
diameters are necessarily the same as the recited “combined widths.” See
Answer 4; see also In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972) ( e rule
does “not mean that things patent drawings show clearly are to be
disregarded.”)
Appellant argues the claims together with respect to the first ground of
rejection. See Appeal Br. 7–10. erefore, claim 10 falls with its parent
claim 1, and we sustain the Examiner’s first ground of rejection. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant also makes no additional substantive
arguments addressing claims 2, 5, and 9, which depend from claim 1 and are
the subjects of the second, third, and fifth grounds of rejection, respectively.
See id. at 10, 13. erefore, we also sustain these rejections.
Rejection 4 (claims 3, 4)
Claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 17. Claim 3
recites “wherein a volume of the first filter unit is greater than a volume of
Appeal 2017-010762
Application 14/722,730

9
each of the second filter units.” Id. According to the Examiner, Oishi and
Kim fail to disclose this limitation. Final Action 10. However, the Examiner
points to Tsai for this limitation. We reproduce Figure 6C of Tsai below:

Figure 6C depicts red, green, and blue filters 50 (50-R, 50-G, and 50-B,
respectively). Tsai ¶ 19. e device also has clear-color filters 46, which are
spaced apart from color filters 50. Id. ¶ 21. Unlike clear filters 46, color
filters 50 “may contact with each other.” Id.
e Examiner finds that Tsai “teaches wherein a volume (width and
thickness shown in Fig. 7 and depth shown in Fig. 6C) of the first filter unit
(50/50-R) is greater than a volume of each of the second filter units (46).”
Final Action 11.
Appellant first argues, as with the first ground of rejection, that the
Examiner improperly relies on the proportions of features in the drawings,
even though the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale.
Appeal Br. 11–12. According to Appellant, “[n]othing in the written
Appeal 2017-010762
Application 14/722,730

10
disclosure of any paragraphs of Tsai contains any discussion of the claimed
dimensional relation between the first filter unit and the second filter units.”
Id. at 12.
is argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Tsai teaches that
color filters 50 directly contact each other, whereas rings 49 “are
disconnected from each other” and act to space clear filters 46 apart from
color filters 50. See Tsai ¶¶ 18, 21, Fig. 6C. Because of the extra width of
rings 49 and their disconnected nature, color filters 50 must be larger than
clear filters 46, or else they would not be in contact with each other when
arranged in a grid pattern as shown in Tsai’s Figure 6C. us, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood Tsai to teach that each clear
filter 46 takes up a smaller area on the image sensor than color filters 50.
Next, Appellant argues that Tsai’s Figure 7 depicts a grid in which
filters are substantially the same width and thickness. See Appeal Br. 12. e
Examiner acknowledges this in the Answer, but clarifies that the rejection
only relies on Figure 7 to show that “the thicknesses of the filter units are
equal.” See Answer 4–5. Appellant does not contest that the thicknesses of
filter units 46 and 50 are equal in Figure 6C.
Appellant also argues that because the widths of each filter unit in
Figure 7 are the same, this means that “the drawings of the color-filters 50-R
and the clear color filters 46 do not reflect their actual[] dimensions.” Appeal
Br. 12. is argument is not persuasive, because Figures 6C and 7 reflect
different embodiments. Figure 7 represents the structure of Figures 6A and
6B with additional processing steps to add microlenses 52. See Tsai ¶ 22.
Figure 6C, as the Examiner correctly explains, “is an alternative
Appeal 2017-010762
Application 14/722,730

11
embodiment of Fig. 6A that is different from Fig. 6B.” Answer 5 (citing Tsai
¶¶ 20–21).
Finally, Appellant argues that clear filters 46 cannot be the “second
filter units” recited in claim 3, because they are “formed of a transparent
material that is transparent to visible light, for example, the lights having
the wavelength in the range between about 400 nm and about 700 nm.”
Appeal Br. 12 (quoting Tsai ¶ 13). us, Appellant argues that clear filters 46
are “not configured to filter colors.” Id.
is is not persuasive of reversible error. Appellant’s Specification
states, “Each of the filter units 20 allows a predetermined range of
wavelengths of light to pass. In some embodiments, the filter units 20 are
color filter units 20.” Spec. ¶ 24 (emphasis added). Based on this passage, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a “filter unit”
is not necessarily a “color filter unit.” Tsai’s clear filter unit 46, which allows
the transmission of a predetermined range of wavelengths such as 400–
700 nm, falls within the broadest reasonable meaning of the term “filter
unit,” even though this range is approximately the full visible spectrum.
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.
Appellant makes no distinct argument regarding claim 4, beyond the
arguments made with respect to claim 1 under the first ground of rejection.
Appeal Br. 10. erefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 for
the reasons discussed above.
Rejections 6–8 (claims 11, 13, 15, 16, 20)
Independent claim 11 is similar to claim 1, except that it includes the
limitation “wherein the first microlenses have a plurality of first diameters
that gradually increase from a central area of the microlens array to an edge
Appeal 2017-010762
Application 14/722,730

12
area of the microlens array.” Appeal Br. 18. According to the Specification,
this gradation allows “the quantity of light passing through the first
microlenses 31 in the central area . . . , the middle area . . . , and the edge
area . . . [to be] uniform, and thus the quality of the image generated by the
image sensor 1 is improved.” Spec. ¶ 52.
For this limitation, the Examiner’s sixth ground of rejection relies on
Figure 3 of Awazu, which we reproduce below:

Awazu’s Figure 3 is a partial cross-sectional view reflecting pixels in a pixel
group. Awazu ¶¶ 32–33. e figure depicts hemispherical microlenses 21a–d.
Id. ¶¶ 57, 66. According to the Examiner, microlenses 21a–d “gradually
increase . . . from a central area (area containing 21b and 21c, see Fig. 3) of
the microlens array to an edge area (area containing 21a and 31d, see Fig. 3)
of the microlens array.” Final Action 13.
Appellant argues that in Awazu, “microlenses 21a to 21d are
uniformly distributed in the microlens array of the image sensor,” and the
diameters “do not gradually increase from a central area of the microlens
array to an edge area of the microlens array.” Appeal Br. 14.
Appeal 2017-010762
Application 14/722,730

13
We agree with Appellant. Figure 3 of Awazu is not an edge-to-edge
view of an entire microlens array. Rather, it is a cross-sectional view of a
single pixel group along a cutting line (X1–Y1) in Figure 2 (see Awazu
¶ 65), which we reproduce below:

Figure 2 depicts a pixel group, consisting of 16 pixels, and associated
microlenses 21a–d, that form a repeated tile pattern over the full image
array. See id. ¶ 56. Because this is a tiled structure, any gradual change over
any single pixel group does not necessarily represent a gradual increase
“from a central area of the microlens array to an edge area of the microlens
array,” as recited in claim 11. us, the Examiner has not made a prima facie
case that claim 11 would have been obvious at the time of invention.
Appeal 2017-010762
Application 14/722,730

14
Claim 16 depends from claim 11 and further recites “wherein angles
between the first grids and the sensing layer gradually increase from the
central area to the edge area.” Appeal Br. 19. e Examiner’s rejection of
claim 16 relies on Figure 11 of Oishi (reproduced above). According to the
Examiner, Figure 11 “shows the sidewall angles of 50 are gradually
increasing.” Final Action 16. According to the Examiner, “an angle may be
said to increase, or be increasing, when it has a positive slope which would
be dependent upon the selected reference frame in which the angle is
viewed.” Answer 6. us, “technically any slope which is greater than zero,
but not infinite, could be interpreted as ‘gradually increasing.’” Id.
Appellant argues that Figure 11 of Oishi does not teach the limitation
in claim 16 because the angle between sensing layer 34 and each grid 50 is
substantially the same. See Appeal Br. 15. We agree. While the slope of each
grid 50 is positive, the examiner has not shown that the sidewall angles 50
“gradually increase from the central area to the edge area” of the microlens
array, as recited in claim 16.
us, we reverse the Examiner’s sixth ground of rejection. Because
claims 13, 15, and 20 depend from claim 11, and the Examiner’s rejections
do not cure the above deficiencies, we also reverse the seventh and eighth
grounds of rejection, for the same reasons.
Appeal 2017-010762
Application 14/722,730

15
CONCLUSION
e following table summarizes the decision:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 10, 21 § 103 Oishi, Kim 1, 10, 21 none
2 § 103 Oishi, Kim, Wang 2 none
5 § 103 Oishi, Kim, Suzuki 5 none
3, 4 § 103 Oishi, Kim, Tsai 3, 4 none
9 § 103 Oishi, Kim, Otsuka 9 none
11, 16 § 103 Awazu, Oishi none 11, 16
13 § 103 Awazu, Oishi, Tsai none 13
15, 20 § 103 Awazu, Oishi, Otsuka none 15, 20
Summary

1–5, 9–10, 21 11, 13, 15,
16, 20
DECISION
e Examiner’s decision is affirmed as to claims 1–5, 9–10, 21, and
reversed as to claims 11, 13, 15, 16, 20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2018).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART