Ex Parte LI et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 21, 2012

11041406 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/041,406 01/25/2005 Jin Li M4065.0965/P965-A 5494
45374 7590 06/21/2012
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 EYE STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
FRANKLIN, JODI COHEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1741
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JIN LI and
ULRICH C. BOETTIGER
__________

Appeal 2011-001140
Application 11/041,406
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001140
Application 11/041,406

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
46, 47, 49-51, 53, 55, and 57-59. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants’ invention is said to be directed to a method of fabricating
a micro-lens array (Spec. para. [0001]).
Claim 46 is illustrative:
46. A method of forming a micro-lens array, comprising:
patterning a first set of micro-lens material onto a
substrate;
reflowing the first set of micro-lens material under first
reflow conditions;
curing the first set of micro-lens material to form a first
set of micro-lenses including a plurality of first micro-lenses,
the first set of micro-lenses corresponding to green pixels;
patterning a second set of micro-lens material onto the
substrate;
reflowing the second set of micro-lens material;
curing the second set of micro-lens material to form a
second set of micro-lenses including a plurality of second
micro-lenses, the second set of micro-lenses corresponding to
blue pixels;
patterning a third set of micro-lens material onto the
substrate;
reflowing the third set of micro-lens material;
curing the third set of micro-lens material to form a third
set of micro-lenses including a plurality of third micro-lenses,
the third set of micro-lenses corresponding to red pixels, and
Appeal 2011-001140
Application 11/041,406

3
wherein the micro-lenses from the first set, second set,
and third set do not overlap each other, at least one set of micro-
lenses having micro-lenses of different sizes and different radii
than the other sets of micro-lenses, and all sets of micro-lenses
having micro-lenses having substantially the same focal length.
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 46, 47, 49-51, 53, 55, and 57-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li (US 2002/0176037 A1 published
Nov. 28, 2002).

Appellants’ arguments focus on claim 46 only (App. Br. 8-11; Reply Br.
2-4).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner reversibly err in determining that Li would have
suggested “at least one set of micro-lenses having micro-lenses of different
sizes and different radii than the other sets of micro-lenses, and all sets of
micro-lenses having micro-lenses having substantially the same focal
length” as required by claim 46? We decide this issue in the negative.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES
The Examiner finds that Li teaches all the steps recited in claim 46,
except for at least one set of micro-lenses having different sizes and different
radii than the other sets of micro-lenses and substantially the same focal
length (Ans. 3-4). The Examiner finds that Li teaches focal length of the
micro-lens may be tailored based upon the lens curvature, thickness (i.e.,
size and shape), and refractive index (id. at 4). The Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to vary micro-lens parameters such as size and
Appeal 2011-001140
Application 11/041,406

4
shape (including radii) of each separate colored array in order to achieve the
same focal length as given by the optical equation disclosed by Li in
paragraphs 25 to 26 (id.).
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not specifically addressed the
level of skill in the art as part of the obviousness analysis set out in Graham
v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 US 1 (1966). We do not find this to be
a basis for reversible error because the prior art (i.e., Li) itself reflects an
appropriate level of skill in the art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350,
1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Appellants further argue that there is no teaching or suggestion to
modify Li to arrive at the claimed invention (App. Br. 9). Appellants
contend that the Examiner has not shown where Li teaches or suggests
“micro-lenses of different sizes and different radii” or where Li teaches or
suggests “all sets of micro-lenses . . . having substantially the same focal
length” (id.). Appellants contend that the Examiner’s reliance on Li’s
paragraphs 25 to 32 to teach size variation is misplaced as such portion of Li
does not teach or suggest lenses of different sizes (Reply Br 4). Appellants
contend that the “dimensions” referred to in Li’s paragraph 32 refers to the
thickness of the micro-lens, not the size (Id). Appellants contend that Li’s
focal length formula does not provide any rationale to create an array of
micro-lenses of different sizes (App. Br. 10). Appellants contend that the
Examiner engaged in impermissible hindsight (id. at 11).
Having fully considered Appellants’ arguments and the Examiner’s
findings, conclusions and arguments, we find that the preponderance of the
evidence favors the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion. Contrary to
Appellants’ arguments, Li teaches that the “dimensions” of the micro-lenses
Appeal 2011-001140
Application 11/041,406

5
maybe different to address changes in color or refractive index of micro-lens
material (Li para. [0032]). Li further discloses that the focal length is
usually set to correspond to the sensor location and may be determined from
the formula disclosed in Li’s paragraph 25. We note that the focal length
formula includes thickness (t) and micro-lens area (A) as variables in
determining focal length (id. at para. [0025]). Li discloses that red, blue and
green micro-lens arrays may be formed iteratively on the substrate (id. at
para. [0036]).
Based on these findings and those of the Examiner (Ans. 4-8), we
agree that Li would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the
micro-lenses of a particular color set may have different dimensions (i.e.,
sizes) than other sets of micro-lenses. The Examiner’s reason is not based
on hindsight, but rather the teachings and suggestions of Li. Though
Appellants argue that Li’s paragraph 32 disclosure of shapes, thicknesses,
and dimensions do not disclose different “sizes” (Reply Br. 4-5), we
disagree.
Appellants have not defined “size” in their Specification. Appellants
have merely explained that a larger micro-lens has a “greater volume” and
“a larger surface area” than the first (i.e., smaller) micro-lenses (Spec. para.
[0030]). In other words, the “size” of a micro-lens is measured in terms of
the parameters that determine the volume or surface area of the micro-lens,
such as the thickness, width and length of the micro-lens. Li takes these
parameters into account when calculating the focal point because the focal
point is based partly on the area (A) and thickness (t) of the micro-lens. We
do not agree with Appellants that Li’s paragraph 32 disclosure of
“dimensions” is limited solely to the micro-lens thickness, as Li discloses
Appeal 2011-001140
Application 11/041,406

6
that other “dimensions” are accounted for in determining the focal point,
such as length and width (or diameter) in determining the area of the micro-
lens. Therefore, Li does teach or suggest different “sizes” of the micro-
lenses within the meaning of the claim.
Regarding the “focal point” feature, the Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to vary the parameters
such as size and shape of the micro-lens in order to achieve the same focal
length based on Li’s disclosed equation (Ans. 4). Appellants do not
specifically challenge this determination. Li teaches that the micro-lens is
tailored so that the focal point focuses on the sensor location (Li, para.
[0025]). This teaching along with the equation disclosed in paragraph 26
indicates that the focal point of the micro-lens may be tailored as appropriate
such that designing each set of micro-lenses to have the same focal point
would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
On this record and for the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s
§ 103 rejection over Li.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.

ORDER
AFFIRMED

bar