MICROSOFT CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 24, 2020

2019002945 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2020)

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.
13/709,911 12/10/2012 Terje K. Backman 337460.01 3163
69316 7590 08/24/2020
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
HASAN, SYED Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2020 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):
chriochs@microsoft.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TERJE K. BACKMAN and MICHAEL AKSIONKIN

Appeal 2019-002945
Application 13/709,911
Technology Center 2400

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DAVID M. KOHUT, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–14 and 17–20.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use “Appellant” to reference the applicant as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
“Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC.” Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 15 and 16 were previously cancelled.
Appeal 2019-002945
Application 13/709,911

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention is a “hyperspectral imager includ[ing] a sensor
array and a filter array.” Spec., Abst. Independent claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of argued subject matter.
1. A depth-imaging color camera comprising:
a radiant-energy source emitting toward a subject in an invisible
wavelength band;
a filter array comprising plural side-by-side groupings of filter
elements, each filter element transmitting radiant energy of a
different wavelength band and rejecting radiant energy outside
of that band, each side-by-side grouping of filter elements
including a first, second, third, and fourth kind of filter element,
the wavelength band of the first kind of filter element being
invisible and those of the second, third and fourth kinds being
visible;
a sensor array of individually addressable, radiant-energy
responsive sensor elements arranged side-by-side, behind the
filter array, the sensor array including, for each side-by-side
grouping of filter elements, a corresponding side-by-side
grouping of first, second, third, and fourth sensor elements,
wherein the first sensor element is aligned with the first kind of
filter element, the second sensor element is aligned with the
second kind of filter element, the third sensor element is aligned
with the third kind of filter element, and the fourth sensor
element is aligned with the fourth kind of filter element; and
a logic machine configured to, for each subject locus imaged
at a corresponding side-by-side grouping of sensor elements,
compute depth to the subject locus by addressing the first
sensor element of the side-by-side grouping, and compute color
of the locus by addressing the second, third, and fourth sensor
elements of the side-by-side grouping.
Appeal Br., Claims Appendix.
Appeal 2019-002945
Application 13/709,911

3
Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 5, 13, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Wu (US 2012/0087645 A1; Apr. 12, 2012) and Kim
(US 2014/0078459 A1; Mar. 20, 2014). Non-Final Act. 10–13.
Claims 4, 14, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wu, Kim, and Olsen (US 2006/0054782 A1; Mar. 16,
2006). Non-Final Act. 13–16.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Wu, Kim, and Parker (US 5268734; Dec. 7, 1993). Non-Final Act. 16–18.
Claims 6–9, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wu, Kim, and Banjanin (US 2013/0245428 A1; Sept. 19,
2013). Non-Final Act. 18–21.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wu, Kim, Banjanin, and Olsen. Non-Final Act. 22.
OPINION
For the following reasons, we are unpersuaded of error in the
rejections of claims 1–14 and 17–20.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection over Wu and Kim
We select claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims 1,
3, 5, 13, 17, and 20 because Appellant has not argued any of the other claims
with particularity. Claim 1 recites in pertinent part:
a filter array comprising plural side-by-side groupings of filter
elements, each filter element transmitting radiant energy of a
different wavelength band and rejecting radiant energy outside
of that band, each side-by-side grouping of filter elements
including a first, second, third, and fourth kind of filter element,
the wavelength band of the first kind of filter element being
Appeal 2019-002945
Application 13/709,911

4
invisible and those of the second, third and fourth kinds being
visible;
Appeal Br., Claims Appendix.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding Wu teaches a
“side-by-side grouping of [visible-light and infrared-light] transmitting filter
elements.” Appeal Br. 14 (summary of arguments); see also id. at 11–14
(specific arguments); Ans. 24–27 (applying Wu). We disagree with
Appellant.
We agree with the Examiner that Wu’s Figure 7B, reproduced below
with an added annotation (grayscale shading), teaches claim 1’s above filter
array. Ans. 24–27 (reliance on Wu’s below-described bandpassing of
visible light and infrared light).
As shown, Wu’s optical filter 104 (not labeled in the figure)
comprises a color filter array (CFA) layer 715 and infrared filter array
(IRFA) layer 720. Wu ¶¶ 24–27 (optical filter 104), 38–39 (CFA layer 715
and IRFA layer 720). Light is passed downward through the filter layers

“[Wu’s] FIG. 7 is a perspective view of an image sensor
including a multi layered optical filter array, in accordance
with an embodiment of the invention.” Wu ¶ 14.
Appeal 2019-002945
Application 13/709,911

5
715, 720 to the underlying sensors of the pixel array layer 710. Id. ¶¶ 21,
38–39; Fig. 7B (downward arrows). The red R, green G, blue B, and
infrared IR regions of the filter layers 715, 720 respectively overlie the
red R, green G, blue B, and infrared IR sensors of the pixel array layer 710.
Id. The CFA layer 715 passes light (i.e., passes those wavelengths and
blocks other wavelengths) as follows: passes red, green, and blue
wavelengths respectively through the red R, green G, and blue B regions;
and passes all wavelengths through the infrared IR regions. Id. ¶¶ 22
(“transmission window 202”), 38. The IRFA layer 720 passes light as
follows: passes all visible light wavelengths through each of the red R,
green G, and blue B regions; and passes a band of infrared light
(e.g., wavelengths of 925 nm to 975 nm) through the infrared IR regions
730. Id. ¶¶ 22 (“transmission window 204”), 39 (“[P]ortions 730 may be
band pass filters or cut filters that pass specific infrared wavelengths. The
remaining portions . . . block all . . . infrared wavelengths while passing all
. . . visible wavelengths.”); see also Ans. 27 (applying Wu’s paragraph 39).
By the above configuration, the filter layers 715, 720 collectively pass
(i.e., the optical filter 104 passes) red, green, blue, and infrared light
respectively through the red R, green G, blue B, and infrared IR regions.
Wu ¶¶ 22, 41.
The Examiner finds that each of the red R, green G, blue B, and
infrared IR regions of the optical filter 104 (i.e., each comprises both
filter layers 715, 720) constitutes a “filter element” as claimed. Ans. 27.
With regard to our description of Wu’s above-reproduced Figure 7, the
grayscale shading denotes such a red-region R “filter element” formed by
the filter layers 715, 720 (i.e., the two leftward blocks under the shaded
Appeal 2019-002945
Application 13/709,911

6
“R” label). Similarly, the grayscale shading also denotes such an
infrared-region IR “filter element” formed by the filter layers 715, 720 (i.e.,
the two rightward blocks under the shaded “IR” label). Therefore, we agree
with the Examiner that Wu’s above-described optical filter 104 is a filter
array comprising filter elements as claimed. Ans. 24–27.
Appellant’s arguments principally concern Wu but do not address the
Examiner’s above reliance on Wu. Appeal Br. 11, 14; Reply Br. 2–5. For
example, Appellant contends the infrared IR region of Wu’s CFA layer 715
passes all wavelengths of light, accordingly does not reject (i.e., block) any
visible wavelengths of light, and therefore cannot teach the claimed “first
kind of filter element.” Appeal Br. 11–12. This contention fails to consider
that each infrared IR region of Wu’s optical filter 104 (each such region
comprised of both filter layers 715, 720) rejects all wavelengths of light
that do not fall within the targeted (i.e., passed) band of infrared light (e.g.,
wavelengths of 925 nm to 975 nm). Id. ¶¶ 22, 39.
Appellant further contends the claimed “side-by-side grouping of
filter elements” constitutes a single filter layer, such that the filter elements
present only two interfaces for light to cross (before reaching a light sensor)
and thereby distinguish over Wu’s above filter regions of Wu’s optical filter
104. Reply Br. 2; Appeal Br. 12. Appellant does not provide a reason why,
nor does Appellant provide sufficient evidence that, the claimed
“side-by-side grouping of filter elements” would be understood by a person
of ordinary skill in the art as constituting a single filter layer. Appellant thus
fails to meet the burden of production for raising this argument. See e.g.,
In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming the prior art
rejection because the appellant “merely argued that the claims differed from
Appeal 2019-002945
Application 13/709,911

7
[the prior art], and chose not to proffer a serious explanation of this
difference.”); In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391
(Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in
greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious
distinctions over the prior art.”).
Appellant also argues that Wu does not disclose “depth imaging.”
Appeal Br. 11, 14. However, the Examiner finds that Kim, not Wu, teaches
this limitation. See e.g., Ans. 28. Furthermore, Appellant does not provide a
description of “depth-imaging” for our consideration. See Jung,
637 F.3d at 1365 (above parenthetical); Baxter, 952 F.2d at 391 (above
parenthetical).
Appellant also argues that the rejection blends unrelated embodiments
of Wu. Appeal Br. 13–14. We are unpersuaded because Wu’s applied
embodiment of Figure 7B, by passing infrared light through the infrared IR
regions and blocking all infrared light at the visible-light regions R, G, B
(Wu ¶¶ 39, 41), bandpasses the red, green, blue, and infrared wavelength
bands taught by Wu with reference to Figure 6 and the two wavelength
bands taught by Wu with reference to Figures 2 and 4. Further, we find that
Wu’s applied embodiment of Figure 7B includes the CFA layer 715 taught
by Wu with reference to Figure 7A. In short, Wu’s relied-upon teachings
are features of the applied embodiment.
For the foregoing reasons, we are unpersuaded by the above
arguments. We accordingly sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 3, 5,
13, 17, and 20 that were grouped with claim 1.
Appeal 2019-002945
Application 13/709,911

8
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection over Wu, Kim, and Olsen
Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to claims 4, 14, 18,
and 19 as with claims 1 and 13. See Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 56. As such,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the same reasons as
indicated supra.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection over Wu, Kim, and Parker
Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to claim 2 as with
claims 1 and 13. See Appeal Br. 16; Reply Br. 5. As such, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of this claim for the same reasons as indicated supra.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection over Wu, Kim, and Banjanin
Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to claims 69, 11,
and 12 as with claims 1 and 13. See Appeal Br. 1617; Reply Br. 6. As
such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of this claim for the same reasons
as indicated supra.
Appeal 2019-002945
Application 13/709,911

9
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection over Wu, Kim, Banjanin, and Olsen
Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to claim 10 as with
claims 1 and 13. See Appeal Br. 1718. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of this claim for the same reasons as indicated supra.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–14 and 17–20.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference/s Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5, 13,
17, 20 103 Wu, Kim
1, 3, 5, 13,
17, 20
4, 14, 18, 19 103 Wu, Kim, Olsen 4, 14, 18, 19
2 103 Wu, Kim, Parker 2
6–9, 11, 12 103 Wu, Kim, Banjanin 6–9, 11, 12
10 103 Wu, Kim, Banjanin, Olsen 10
Overall
Outcome 1–14, 17–20

AFFIRMED