SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 4, 2021

2020003617 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2021)

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. 15/480,521 04/06/2017 Bart CREMERS ONS02382US 4601 129948 7590 10/04/2021 SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC (VT) 5005 E. McDowell Road, MD A700 Phoenix, AZ 85008 EXAMINER CAMARGO, MARLY S.B. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2697 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/04/2021 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): patents@onsemi.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BART CREMERS Appeal 2020-003617 Application 15/480,521 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8, 12, and 14–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 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 Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-003617 Application 15/480,521 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s Specification explains that the claimed subject matter relates to “imaging devices with image sensor pixels.” Spec. 1:3–4. Claim 1, reproduced below, with annotations indicating the disputed limitations, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. An image sensor comprising: an array of image sensor pixels; data converters that receive signals from the array of image sensor pixels; a plurality of vertical readout lines coupling the array of image sensor pixels to the data converters; and a plurality of diagonal readout lines coupling the array of image sensor pixels to the data converters. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Minagawa et al. (“Minagawa”) US 2013/0057743 A1 Mar. 7, 2013 Zarnowski et al. (“Zarnowski”) US 2010/0149393 A1 June 17, 2010 REJECTION2 Claims 1–8, 12, and 14–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Minagawa and Zarnowski. Ans. 4–19. 2 Claims 9–11 and 20–22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but also indicated as being allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Ans. 19; Appeal Br. 2. Claims 13 and 19 were cancelled. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-003617 Application 15/480,521 3 OPINION The Examiner finds Minagawa teaches many of the limitations of claim 1, including, inter alia, a plurality of vertical readout lines coupling an array of image sensor pixels to data converters. See Ans. 4–5, 21 (citing Minagawa Fig. 1, ¶¶ 81–83, 85, 94, 123). However, the Examiner finds Minagawa does not expressly disclose a plurality of diagonal readout lines coupling an array of image sensor pixels to data converters. See Ans. 5. The Examiner relies instead on Zarnowski as teaching this limitation. See Ans. 5–6. Specifically, the Examiner finds Figure 1 of Zarnowski shows a 3-x-3 sub-pixel array forming a color pixel is a diagonal pattern with red, green, and blue color sub-pixels, where the sub-pixels are oriented diagonally to improve visual resolution. See Ans. 5, 23–24 (citing Zarnowski Fig. 1, ¶¶ 8, 34, 36–37). The Examiner further finds Figure 8 of Zarnowski shows diagonal columns, where each diagonal column includes sub-pixels, where each diagonal column is connected to a converter, and where the diagonal columns teach or suggest the claimed plurality of diagonal readout lines coupling an array of image sensor pixels to data converters. See Ans. 5–6, 24–25 (citing Zarnowski Fig. 8, ¶¶ 48–56). According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, at the time of the claimed invention, to modify Minagawa’s readout circuit to include the additional diagonal readout lines disclosed in Zarnowski to improve the visual resolution as also disclosed by Zarnowski. See Ans. 6–7 (citing Zarnowski ¶¶ 8, 34, 51–52). Appellant argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Minagawa and Zarnowski as the Examiner has combined them to arrive at the claimed invention because Minagawa expressly describes a rectangular array of pixels with vertical column lines that are parallel to each Appeal 2020-003617 Application 15/480,521 4 pixel column in the rectangular array, while Zarnowski expressly describes a diagonally oriented array of pixels with diagonal column lines that are parallel to each pixel column in the diagonally oriented array. See Appeal Br. 8–9. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because the argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Specifically, claim 1 does not limit the shape of the array of image sensor pixels to any particular shape (such as a rectangular array or diagonally oriented array), nor does claim 1 limit the orientation of the vertical and diagonal column lines with respect to the orientation of the pixels in the array. Even assuming arguendo that Appellant’s argument was commensurate with the scope of claim 1, the argument is still not persuasive because it focuses on one specific way to combine the structures disclosed in Minagawa and Zarnowski rather than the suggestion by Zarnowski of using a diagonal readout line to read out data from a pixel array in order to improve visual resolution. Indeed, the Supreme Court made clear that when considering obviousness, “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Further, as the Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that combining vertical readout lines with diagonal readout lines within an image sensor would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the claimed invention, in light of the combination of Minagawa and Zarnowski. Appeal 2020-003617 Application 15/480,521 5 Appellant additionally argues Minagawa fails to disclose or suggest either a diagonal readout line or interpolation in the diagonal direction. See Appeal Br. 10–12. These arguments are not persuasive either because, as previously discussed above, the Examiner relies upon Zarnowski rather than Minagawa for teaching or suggesting a plurality of diagonal readout lines coupling an array of image sensor pixels to data converters as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 5–6. Appellant further argues both Minagawa and Zarnowski use signal readout lines that are parallel to the arrangement of the pixels and neither Minagawa nor Zarnowski teach or suggest signal readout lines that are “different” (i.e., non-parallel) to the arrangement of pixels. See Appeal Br. 12–13. This argument is not persuasive either, as this argument is also not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. In other words, the scope of claim 1 encompasses readout lines that are either parallel to the array of image sensor pixels or not parallel to the array of image sensor pixels. Further, even assuming arguendo that Appellant’s argument was commensurate with the scope of claim 1, Appellant has not shown that modifying the readout lines disclosed in either Minagawa or Zarnowski to be not parallel to the array of image sensor pixels would either be beyond the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art or would result in a difference in function or give unexpected results. In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965) (“Appellants have failed to show that the change [in the claimed invention] as compared to [the reference], result in a difference in function or give unexpected results,” emphasis in original). Appellant additionally argues the Examiner’s finding with respect to Zarnowski’s use of an orthogonal display having display pixels arranged in rectangular rows and columns is irrelevant “since claim 1 relates only to the Appeal 2020-003617 Application 15/480,521 6 readout scheme of the image capture but not the display scheme.” See Appeal Br. 13–14 (emphasis omitted). However, this argument does not appear to be relevant to the rejection, as the Examiner finds that Zarnowski discloses a pixel array where the sub-pixels are oriented diagonally and further discloses diagonal columns connected to a converter. See Ans. 5–6, 23–25 (citing Zarnowski Figs. 1, 8, ¶¶ 8, 34, 36–37, 48–50, 52–56). Further, it does not appear that Appellant contests this finding by the Examiner. See Appeal Br. 8, 13–14 (“Zarnowski shows in FIG. 1 a diagonally oriented pixel array and further shows in FIG. 8 where a column of diagonally oriented pixels is coupled to a sense node[.] . . . Zarnowski describes capturing an image using diagonally oriented pixels[.]”). For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2–8, 12, and 14–18, which Appellant does not separately argue. See Appeal Br. 9, 14–15. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–8, 12, 14–18 103 Minagawa, Zarnowski 1–8, 12, 14–18 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). Appeal 2020-003617 Application 15/480,521 7 AFFIRMED