Ex Parte Orava et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 25, 2004

08871199 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 25, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte RISTO OLAVI ORAVA, JOUNI LLARI PYYHTIA,
TOM GUNNAR SCHULMAN, MILTIADIS EVANGELOS SARAKINOS
and KONSTANTINOS EVANGELOS SPARTIOTIS
____________
Appeal No. 2003-0312
Application No. 08/871,199
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before DIXON, LEVY, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEVY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner's final rejection of claims 61-72, which are all of the
claims pending in this application.
BACKGROUND
Appellants' invention relates to an imaging device.
Specifically, the method includes comparing a detected pixel
value related to a minimum detected charge value expected for
Appeal No. 2003-0312
Application No. 08/871,199
Page 2
directly incident radiation, and discarding detected pixel values
less than the threshold value, to eliminate scattered radiation
before processing (specification, pages 12 and 14). In
addition, the method includes accumulating charge resulting from
radiation hits at or above the threshold (specification, page
37). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary claim 61, which is reproduced as follows:
61. A semiconductor radiation imaging device for imaging
high-energy radiation, comprising an array of pixel cells
including an array of pixel detectors which directly generate
charge in response to incident radiation and a corresponding
array of individually addressable pixel circuits, wherein each
pixel circuit is associated with a respective pixel detector for
accumulating charge directly resulting from radiation incident on
said pixel detector and comprises threshold circuitry and charge
accumulation circuitry, said threshold circuitry being configured
to discard radiation hits on said pixel detector below a
predetermined threshold and said charge accumulation circuitry
being configured to accumulate charge directly resulting from a
plurality of successive radiation hits on said respective pixel
detector at or above said predetermined threshold.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Tower 4,811,371 Mar. 7, 1989
Hack et al. (Hack) 5,153,420 Oct. 6, 1992
Kramer et al. (Kramer) 5,379,336 Jan. 3, 1995
Fouilloy et al. (Fouilloy) 5,387,933 Feb. 7, 1995
Sugawa 5,401,952 Mar. 28, 1995
Claim 61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fouilloy in view of Hack.
Appeal No. 2003-0312
Application No. 08/871,199
Page 3
Claims 62, 63, 69, 70 and 72 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fouilloy in view of Hack, and
further in view of Sugawa.
Claims 64-68 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fouilloy in view of Hack, Sugawa, and
further in view of Tower.
Claim 71 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fouilloy in view of Hack, and further in view
of Kramer.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 25, mailed
August 13, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 24, filed
June 25, 2002) for appellants' arguments thereagainst. Only
those arguments actually made by appellants have been considered
in this decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the brief have not been considered. See 37
CFR 1.192(a).
Appeal No. 2003-0312
Application No. 08/871,199
Page 4
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellants' arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse,
essentially for the reasons set forth by appellants. We observe
at the outset that appellants assert (brief, page 4) that "[a]ll
of the claims stand or fall with claim 61." Consistent with this
statement, appellants arguments are directed to the rejection of
claim 61. In addition, we observe that appellants do not argue
any of the secondary references applied by the examiner.
Accordingly, we consider claim 61 to be representative of the
group. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual
Appeal No. 2003-0312
Application No. 08/871,199
Page 5
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why one
having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been led to
modify the prior art or to combine prior art references to arrive
at the claimed invention. Such reason must stem from some
teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art as a whole
or knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in
the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,
1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v.
Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ
657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore
Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
These showings by the examiner are an essential part of complying
with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.
Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts
to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
the evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038,
1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Appeal No. 2003-0312
Application No. 08/871,199
Page 6
Turning to claim 61, the examiner's position (answer, page
4) is that Fouilloy does not specifically state that the image
sensor may be used to image high-energy radiation. To overcome
this deficiency in Fouilloy, the examiner turns to Hack for a
teaching of image sensors may be made sensitive to high-energy
wavelengths. Appellants do not contest the teachings of Hack,
but rather assert (brief, page 6) that the position taken by the
examiner has no merit because in Fouilloy, the circuitry will
accumulate charges below and above V0 when the accumulated
charges remain below V1 and will discard charges below and above
V0 when the accumulated charge rises above V1. Appellants assert
(brief, page 4) that claim 61 recites
a semiconductor radiation imaging device for imaging
high-energy radiation, which includes threshold
circuitry and charge accumulation circuitry, the
threshold circuitry being configured to discard
radiation hits below a predetermined energy threshold,
and the charge accumulation circuitry being configured
to accumulate charge resulting from radiation hits
above the predetermined energy threshold. Thus, only
radiation hits that exceed the threshold are
accumulated. Radiation hits below the threshold are
discarded,
and that Fouilloy teaches the opposite, i.e., that during normal
operation, charges below V1 are accumulated, and that when
charges above V1 are detected, all charges are discarded.
Appeal No. 2003-0312
Application No. 08/871,199
Page 7
From our review of Fouilloy, we find that Fouilloy is
directed to the field of optronic countermeasures, and
specifically relates to the protection of detector-fitted cameras
against dazzling, jamming or even destruction (col. 1, lines 6-
10). Fouilloy discloses that it is a known countermeasure of
detecting a camera through the reflection of a low powered laser,
and then aiming a high-powered pulsed laser to illuminate all or
part of the optical detector to dazzle or even damage the camera.
The lasers operate at a wavelength that is transparent to the
optical system of the camera. The dazzling is due to the
saturation of all or part of the sensor which make up the
detector, and results in images that are partially or totally
saturated. If the frequency of the pulses is faster than the
frequency of the images, then the saturation systematically
affects all of the images (col. 1, lines 10-25). A known way to
protect a camera from these countermeasures is to discriminate
between the narrow spectrum of this radiation and the wide
spectrum of natural sources, and to stop the frame scanning of
the camera during the duration of the disturbing laser (col. 1,
lines 27-32). In the summary of the invention, Fouilloy
discloses providing intermediate integration circuits, and
wherein the camera comprises measuring means to measure the
Appeal No. 2003-0312
Application No. 08/871,199
Page 8
charge of the intermediate integration circuits, and control
means to modify the contents of the intermediate integration
circuits when at least one of the charges exceeds a given value
(col. 1, line 60 through col. 2, line 2). Figure 1 discloses a
detector constituted by an array of sensors A1, Ai...An. Each of
the sensors is connected by a sequence of circuits, to
multiplexer K, provided with an output S. The output of sensor
Ai is connected to the input of coupling circuit Bi, which is
controlled by clock H. The output of circuit Bi is connected to
the input of an intermediate integration circuit Di, which is
associated with a potential barrier Ei. A port of intermediate
integration circuit is connected to an input of transfer circuit
Gi, which is controlled by clock H. The output of transfer
circuit Gi is connected to the input to main integration circuit
Ji., the output of which is connected to multiplexer K. A port
of the potential barrier Ei is connected to a measuring circuit M
and to a switch N. Inverter Q, controls the potential barriers
such as Ei, and the input of switch N (col. 2, lines 15-59). In
the example described, potential barrier Ei has an FET
transistor, the drain of which is connected to measuring circuit
M and switch N. The gate receives the signal Cc, as shown in
figure 2. Fouilloy further discloses that the height of the
Appeal No. 2003-0312
Application No. 08/871,199
Page 9
barrier can have two values, V0 and V1. When the height has the
value V1, charges that exceed V1 are collected by the drain.
when the height has the value V0, all of the charges contained in
circuit Di flow into the drain. In normal operation, the
potential of circuit Di is below V1, such that Ei plays the role
of a changeover switch. When the potential of circuit Di is
greater than V1, i.e., a high amplitude signal is received, the
charges overflow into the drain. When the potential of circuit
Di exceeds V1, the height of the barrier is lowered to V0 by the
inverter Q. The result is that, outside normal operation,
barrier Ei is opened, switch N is closed, emptying Di.
We find from the disclosure of Fouilloy that under normal
operation, the barrier Ei is set to V1, and that all charges in
Di below the potential of V1 are accumulated. We further find
that if the potential of circuit exceeds V1, that excess charges
are collected by the drain. Thus, we find that in Fouilloy,
during normal operation charges below the threshold V1 are stored
and charges in excess of V1 go to drain, which is opposite to the
operation of the circuit defined in appellants' claim 61. We
additionally find that outside of normal operation, i.e., when
the sensors are being dazzled, that the height of the barrier is
lowered to V0, and all charges in Di go to drain. In an attempt
Appeal No. 2003-0312
Application No. 08/871,199
Page 10
to read Fouilloy on the claimed threshold operations defined in
claim 61, the examiner attempts to apply Fouilloy by taking the
position (answer, page 4) that “[w]hen the height has value V0
(predetermined threshold), all the charges contained in the
circuit Di flow into the drain, it clearly includes the charges
below V0 (discard radiation hits on the pixel detector below a
predetermined threshold, column 3, lines 4-45).” We agree with
the examiner that during dazzling of the detector, the height of
the barrier is set at V0, and that charges below V0 are
discarded, as all charges on Di, both above and below V0 are
discarded. However, we do not agree with the examiner (answer,
pages 4 and 5) that “Fouilloy et al. also discloses when the
height has value V1, only the charges such that the potential of
the circuit Di exceeds V1 are collected by the drain (column 3,
lines 10-15). It clearly [sic] that charges below V1 are
accumulated in integration circuit. Fouilloy et al. discloses
that V0 is smaller than V1 (column 3, lines 37-39). Therefore,
charges above V0 are accumulated in integration circuit
(accumulate charges above the predetermined threshold).” We find
that during normal operation of the device, the threshold is V1,
and charges below the threshold V1 are accumulated, not
discarded, as required by claim 61. We additionally find that
Appeal No. 2003-0312
Application No. 08/871,199
Page 11
during normal operation, there is no threshold V0. Although the
reference accumulates all charges below V1, including charges
between zero and V0 and between V0 and less that V1, there is no
threshold V0 during the normal operation. This is where the
examiner's analysis fails. Because there is no threshold V0
during normal operation, there is no accumulation of charge above
a set threshold during normal operation. Thus, we find that the
examiner's analysis does not meet the claimed threshold operation
set forth in claim 61. Accordingly, we agree with appellants
(brief, pages 6 and 7) that:
During normal operation, when the camera of
Fouilloy is not being dazzled or jammed, the
camera will not discard charges below V).
Instead, it will accumulate all charges below
V0 and above V0 up to V1. Thus, Fouilloy,
during normal operation, will not discard
radiation hits below a predetermined energy
threshold as required by claim 61 of the
application, and in fact will accumulate
charges below the Examiner’s asserted
threshold V0. Second, when the camera of
Fouilloy is dazzled or jammed, it will dump
all charges, including those both above and
below V0. Thus when the camera is dazzled
or jammed, it will not accumulate charges
above the Examiner’s asserted predetermined
energy threshold of Vo as required by claim
61 of the application, and in fact will
discard charges above the Examiner’s asserted
threshold V0. In summary, Fouilloy’s potential
barrier Ei having a value of V0 does not act as
a predetermined energy threshold below which
charges are dropped and above which charges
Appeal No. 2003-0312
Application No. 08/871,199
Page 12
are accumulated, as asserted by the Examiner.
As explained above, during normal operation,
Fouilloy will accumulate charges below the
value V0, and during dazzling or jamming.
Fouilloy will discard charges below V0.
For at least these reasons, Fouilloy does
not disclose or suggest discarding radiation
hits below a predetermined energy threshold
and accumulating charges resulting from hits
above the predetermined energy threshold, as
required by claim 61 of the application.
Turning to Hack, although appellants do not argue the
teachings of Hack, we find that Hack does not make up for the
basic deficiencies of Fouilloy. From all of the above, we find
that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 61. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 61
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
In addition, we reverse the rejection of claims 62-72 as the
references to Sugawa, Tower and Kramer do not make up for the
deficiencies of the basic combination of Fouilloy and Hack. The
rejection of claims 62-72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is therefore
reversed.
Appeal No. 2003-0312
Application No. 08/871,199
Page 13
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
61-72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
STUART S. LEVY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
SSL/kis
Appeal No. 2003-0312
Application No. 08/871,199
Page 14
KENYON & KENYON
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004