VisEra Technologies Company Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2021

2020006688 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 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.
15/583,569 05/01/2017 Wu-Cheng KUO 0941/3357PUS1 5913
60601 7590 12/02/2021
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, SOPHIA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2822
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2021 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):
MAILROOM@MG-IP.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WU-CHENG KUO, KUO-FENG LIN, TSUNG-LIN WU, and
CHIN-CHUAN HSIEH
Appeal 2020-006688
Application 15/583,569
Technology Center 2800
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1–8 and 12–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Park (US 10,008,544 B2, June 26, 2018) in view of
Jorgenson (US 2014/0008660 A1, Jan. 9, 2014).3

1 The following documents are of record: Specification filed May 1, 2017
(“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated Jan. 6, 2020 (“Final Act.”); Appeal
Brief filed June 5, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), citations to pages 18–19 being to the
Claims Appendix; and Examiner’s Answer dated July 23, 2020 (“Ans.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as VisEra Technologies
Company Limited. Appeal Br. 2.
3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2020-006688
Application 15/583,569

2

We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to an image sensor having a first photoelectric
conversion component. Spec. ¶ 1. Image sensors are “used in various image-
capturing apparatuses, for example video cameras, digital cameras and the
like.” Id. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An image sensor, comprising:
a substrate having a first region and a second region adjacent to
each other; and
a first photoelectric conversion component disposed on the first
region of the substrate,
wherein the first photoelectric conversion component
comprises:
a first metal layer formed on the substrate;
a first photoelectric conversion layer formed on the first metal
layer; and
a second metal layer formed on the first photoelectric
conversion layer, wherein the first metal layer, the first
photoelectric conversion layer and the second metal layer form
a Fabry-Perot cavity.
Appeal Br. 18.
OPINION
The Examiner makes three separate rejections of claim 1 and various
dependent claims over different embodiments in Park. Compare Final Act. 2–
7 (claims 1–5 and 12–14), with id. at 7–12 (claims 1–8, 13, and 14), and id. at
12–14 (claims 1–8 and 12). The Appellant argues the patentability of claim 1
Appeal 2020-006688
Application 15/583,569

3

only, and indicates that the arguments are applicable to each ground of
rejection. See Appeal Br. 10–11, bridging paragraph.
The Examiner found that Park discloses the claim 1 invention except
that Park does not explicitly disclose that the first metal layer, the first
photoelectric conversion layer and the second metal layer form a Fabry-Perot
cavity. See Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner found that Jorgenson discloses that
“a structure comprising a first metal layer [112], a photoelectric conversion
layer/a semiconductor layer [113] and a second metal layer [114] form a
Fabry-Perot cavity.” Id. at 4. Citing Jorgenson paragraphs 94, 96, and 99, the
Examiner found that the ordinary artisan would have modified Park so that the
first metal layer, the first photoelectric conversion layer and the second metal
layer form a Fabry-Perot cavity “for the purpose of providing a device having
integrated interference filters to select specific peak wavelengths and
bandwidths and therefore address specific and diverse application areas.” Id.
at 4–5.
The Appellant argues that Park is directed to an image sensor that uses
photoelectric devices. Appeal Br. 10. Quoting column 13, lines 36–51, the
Appellant notes that Park discloses “two metal layers are provided to collect
electrons and holes separated by the photoelectric effect and induce electrical
current that indicates illumination of light having a certain wavelength.” Id. at
12 (emphasis omitted). The Appellant explains that “the photoelectric effect is
a transfer of optical energy to electrical energy.” Id. (emphasis omitted).
The Appellant asserts that a “Fabry-Perot cavity is based on Fabry-
Perot interference, which is an optical interference caused by reflection of
light by two parallel reflecting surfaces.” Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis omitted).
The Appellant further explains:
Appeal 2020-006688
Application 15/583,569

4

The varying transmission function of the Fabry-Perot
interference is caused by interference between the multiple
reflections of light between the two reflecting surfaces.
Constructive interference occurs if the transmitted beams are in
phase, and this corresponds to a high-transmission peak of the
Fabry-Perot interference. If the transmitted beams are out-of-
phase, destructive interference occurs and this corresponds to a
transmission minimum. Based on the distance between the two
reflecting surfaces, the Fabry-Perot interference allows a
specified wavelength of light to be selected.
Id. at 13 (emphasis omitted). The Appellant argues that, although “Park
discloses two metal layers and a light absorption layer between the metal
layers,” the ordinary artisan would have understood that Park’s photoelectric
image sensor senses light having a predetermined wavelength in an entirely
technologically different manner than an image sensor that uses a Fabry-Perot
cavity. Id. at 14. 4 The Appellant asserts that “modification of Park as
suggested by the Examiner would render Park unsatisfactory for its intended
use as such modification would entirely destroy the originally intended
concept and structural and electrical design of Park.” Id. at 15.
Responsive to the Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner notes that
Specification paragraph 49 discloses that a first photoelectric conversion layer
disposed between two metal layers may function as a Fabry-Perot cavity. Ans.
4–5. The Examiner finds that a Fabry-Perot “cavity is constructed to optimize

4 We note that the Appellant relies on Wikipedia to explain the technological
differences between Park’s photoelectric image sensor and a sensor that uses
a Fabry-Perot cavity as claimed. See generally Appeal Br. 11–15. The
Examiner does dispute the accuracy of the cited Wikipedia descriptions.
Therefore, although Wikipedia is a secondary source that we do not consider
reliable, for purposes of this decision, we accept the cited disclosure as
providing accurate descriptions of the photoelectric effect and Fabry-Perot
interference.
Appeal 2020-006688
Application 15/583,569

5

interference pattern of reflections and limit the path that light that [sic] is
transmitted.” Id. at 7. The Examiner finds that reflection and transmission in a
Fabry-Perot interferometer are optimized by adjusting layer thicknesses, the
distances between the two metal layers, and frequencies. Id. “Additionally,
particular Fabry-Perot devices such as lasers, signal transducers,
interferometers, sensors, modulators, and the like require other optimized
thicknesses of the layers, distances between the two metal layers, and
frequencies that are optimized for reflection and transmission.” Id.
The Examiner notes that the claims do not specify layer thicknesses,
distances between layers or frequencies, or recite a specific Fabry-Perot
device, and, therefore, determines that the claims are broad enough to
encompass any Fabry-Perot cavity, even if it is sub-optimal or poorly
functioning. Id. The Examiner contends that because Park’s structure includes
the same three layers described in Specification paragraph 49, it necessarily
functions as a Fabry-Perot cavity as claimed. Id.; see also id. at 5 (finding that
Park’s photoelectric conversion layer’s thickness is in the range described in
the Specification, and Park’s structure has the same geometry described in the
Specification).
[W]here the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional
limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the
claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent
characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to
require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to
be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on.
In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re
Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971)).
The Appellant’s arguments alone are insufficient to demonstrate that
Park’s structure—a light absorption layer between two metal layers—does not
Appeal 2020-006688
Application 15/583,569

6

necessarily form a Fabry-Perot cavity as claimed. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejections of claim 1, as well as the rejections of dependent claims 2–8 and
12–14.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 12–14 103 Park, Jorgenson 1–8, 12–14
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED