Rambus Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 19, 20202020003721 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 15/953,597 04/16/2018 Patrick R. Gill RA1471.PCT.C1.US 4750 38489 7590 11/19/2020 SILICON EDGE LAW GROUP, LLP 7901 Stoneridge Drive Suite 528 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 EXAMINER SPINKS, ANTOINETTE T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2698 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/19/2020 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): USPTO@dockettrak.com art@siliconedgelaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PATRICK R. GILL and DAVID G. STORK ____________ Appeal 2020-003721 Application 15/953,597 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LARRY J. HUME, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2–7, 10–12 and 14–21.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The oral hearing scheduled for this appeal on November 9, 2020, was waived. 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Rambus Inc. Appeal Br. 1. 3 Claims 1 and 13 have been cancelled previously. The Examiner indicated that claims 8 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 9. Appeal 2020-003721 Application 15/953,597 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s disclosure is directed to a “planar Fourier capture array (PFCA),” which is “an image-sensing device that employs an array of angle- sensitive pixels to obviate the needs for a mirror, lens, focal length, or moving parts.” Spec. ¶ 1. According to Appellant’s disclosure, “[s]uch image sensors include two diffraction gratings patterned over and in parallel with an array of photosensors” having spacing between the gratings that “can be difficult to obtain reliably using inexpensive and readily available fabrication processes.” Claim 2 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows: 2. A transmissive phase grating comprising: a plurality of boundaries extending radially over an area, each boundary defined by adjacent and transparent first and second features symmetrically disposed on either side of that boundary; a first filter covering a first portion of the area; and a second filter covering a second portion of the area. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix). Claims 2, 7, 16, and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Grenet (US 2013/0120763 Al; pub. May 16, 2013). Final Act. 4–5. Claims 3, 4, 18, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grenet and Hock (US 3,891,321; iss. June 24, 1975). Final Act. 5–6. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grenet and the Examiner’s Official Notice. Final Act. 6–7. Appeal 2020-003721 Application 15/953,597 3 Claims 10, 12, 14, 15, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grenet and Yanagita (US 2011/0058075 A; pub. Mar. 10, 2011). Final Act. 7–8. Claims 11 and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grenet, Yanagita, and the Examiner’s Official Notice. Final Act. 9. ANALYSIS Claim 2 In rejecting claim 2, the Examiner finds paragraphs 30, 47, and 48 of Grenet disclose the recited grating. Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner specifically finds: Regarding claim 2, Grenet et al. disclose, in at least figure 9, a transmissive phase grating comprising: a plurality of boundaries (104) extending radially over an area, each boundary defined by adjacent and transparent first and second features symmetrically disposed on either side of that boundary (¶30: a grating 104 is used to let only part of the light reach the sensor; grating contains repetitive elements 108 and a distinctive element 107); a first filter (901) covering a first portion of the area; and a second filter (904) covering a second portion of the area (¶47–48: filter 901 covers two areas 902 and 903 of the sensor, while filter 904 covers two other areas 905 and 906 of the sensor). Id. Appellant contends “Grenet’s Element 104 is not a ‘boundary,’ but is rather a grating.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant further contends Figures 4 of Grenet similarly depict “image of a grating taken by a two-dimensional sensor,” shown as a grid having “repetitive squares 402 and diagonal lines 401,” which are different from the recited “boundaries extending radially over an area.” Appeal Br. 6–7 (citing Grenet ¶ 43). Appellant asserts “the Appeal 2020-003721 Application 15/953,597 4 Grenet grating 104 does not include adjacent and transparent features that form boundaries,” but “is opaque, with holes to allow light to reach a sensor.” Appeal Br. 7–8 (citing Grenet ¶ 30 (“A grating 104 is used to let only part of the light reach the sensor 105”)). In the Answer, the Examiner challenges Appellant’s definition of radially as requiring to “extend in a direction pointing along a radius from center” and adds that “radially” can be defined as diverging from a center. Ans. 9. The Examiner concludes that, based on this definition, Grenet’s Figure 4 shows boundaries 401 extending, although discontinuously, from the center of the grating. Id. The Examiner further finds “Grenet teaches, in at least figures 2, a plurality of opaque boundaries (104) and holes in between each boundary,” whereas the “holes are transparent and directly and immediately adjacent to each opaque region on either side” because “the boundaries are opaque and they are defined by the holes, which are transparent and directly and immediately adjacent to the boundaries, as required by the claims.” Id. We agree with Appellant that claim 2’s recited “plurality of boundaries extending radially over an area” and each boundary “defined by adjacent and transparent first and second features symmetrically disposed on either side of that boundary” should not be construed so broadly that it reads on, for example, Grenet’s grating 104 or the pattern in Grenet’s Figures 4. See Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. As stated by Appellant, “Grenet’s diagonal lines 410 are not ‘characterized by divergence from a center’ or ‘arranged or having parts arranged like rays,’ and they do not develop ‘uniformly around a central axis.’” Reply Br. 2–3. Appeal 2020-003721 Application 15/953,597 5 Grenet’s disclosure relates to an imaging system including an array of pixels and a grating or microlens array that casts a shadow on the imaging device. Grenet ¶ 6. Figure 1 illustrates the grating 104 letting a part of light reach the sensor in a shadow pattern through the repetitive elements 108. Grenet ¶ 30. Figure 4 further “shows the image of a grating taken by a two- dimensional sensor” including “diagonal lines 401, the repetitive pattern is a square 402” whereas “[t]he grid of the repetitive pattern is aligned to the grid of pixels of the sensor.” Grenet ¶ 43. Accordingly, we disagree with the Examiner’s characterization of diagonal lines 401 or “a plurality of boundaries (401) that extend from the center of the grating” (see Ans. 9) as the disputed claim limitation because Grenet’s grating has a repetitive pattern with opaque parts and openings, rather than “a plurality of boundaries extending radially over an area, each boundary defined by adjacent and transparent first and second features symmetrically disposed on either side of that boundary,” as recited in Appellant’s claim 2. Claim 17 Regarding claim 17, Appellant contends the rejection is in error based on the reasons stated for claim 2 and adds because “Grenet’s grating 104 does not include immediately adjacent and transparent features that form boundaries.” Appeal Br. 8. Similar to our discussion above, we are persuaded by Appellant’s contentions that Grenet’s grating 104 does not have the features recited in claim 17. In particular, we agree with Appellant’s argument that even if the grating depicted in Grenet’s Figure 2 includes transparent holes to allow light in, Grenet’s holes “are separated from one another by opaque portions of pattern 114.” Reply Br. 4. That is, Appeal 2020-003721 Application 15/953,597 6 the Examiner has not identified any features in Grenet that correspond to the recited “boundaries.” Conclusion For the above reasons, because we are persuaded of Examiner error in rejecting claims 2, 7, 16, and 17, we do not sustain their rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Grenet. We also do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of the remaining claims because the Examiner has not identified any teachings in the other applied prior art references or the Examiner’s Official Notice to cure the above-identified deficiency of Grenet. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 2, 7, 16, 17 102 Grenet 2, 7, 16, 17 3, 4, 18, 19 103 Grenet, Hock 3, 4, 18, 19 5, 6 103 Grenet, Official Notice 5, 6 10, 12, 14, 15, 20 103 Grenet, Yanagita 10, 12, 14, 15, 20 11, 21 103 Grenet, Yanagita, Official Notice 11, 21 Overall Outcome 2–7, 10–12 14–21 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation