Rambus Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 19, 2020

2020003721 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 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.
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