Ex Parte Thorne

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

13203220 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/203,220 08/24/2011
21839 7590 04/04/2016
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter Michael Thorne
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
0074778-000036 5341
EXAMINER
MALKOWSKI, KENNETH J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2016 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):
ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER MICHAEL THORNE
Appeal2014-005588
Application 13/203,220
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-8 and 11-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellant (see Appeal Brief, generally) request review of the
following rejections from the Examiner's Final Action: 1
I. Claims 1-7 and 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Byars et al. (US 7 ,397,019 B 1, issued Jul. 8,
1 A complete statement of the Examiner appealed rejections appears in the
Final Action 2-6.
Appeal2014-005588
Application 13/203,220
2008) in view of Applicant's AdmittedPrior Art (hereinafter
"AAPA") and further in view of Sugie (US 2008/0107408 Al,
published May 8, 2008); and in
II. Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Byars in view of AAP A and Sugie, and
further in view ofKisa (US 6,310,805, issued Oct. 30, 2001).
OPINION
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 1-8 and
11-15 for the reasons presented by the Examiner. We add the following for
emphasis. 2
Rejection I
Appellant's invention is directed to an Infra Red (IR) detector system
in which a coordinate generator is integrated with an IR signal detector
system to reduce signal post processing requirements, improve speed and
reduce detection latency. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. An infra red (IR) detector system for a target location
compnsmg:
a focal plane array (FP A) detector configured to capture
an image representative of a scene as pixel data;
2 Appellant has not presented specific arguments addressing each of the
rejected claims. Appellant relies on the same arguments when addressing
independent claims 1, 7, and 15. We select independent claim 1 as
representative of the subject matter on appeal and will limit our discussion
thereto. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
2
Appeal2014-005588
Application 13/203,220
a digital coordinate generator located on the focal plane
array detector; and
comparator means including at least one comparator for
comparing the pixel data to a predetermined reference level,
wherein the at least one comparator is configured to address
the pixel data one row at a time, convert the pixel data to
digital form, output the converted digital data, settle a
respective comparator output when a time at row start is
provided, and power down once digital data of a respective
pixel row is output to an output latch such that pixel data of
a subsequent pixel row is converted while the output digital
data of the respective pixel row is processed.
The Examiner found Byers discloses an infrared (IR) detector system
for a target location comprising a digital coordinate generator located on the
focal plane array detector and comparator means including at least one
comparator for comparing the pixel data to a predetermined reference level.
(Final Act. 3). The Examiner found the AAPA describes a comparator is
configured to address the pixel data one row at a time. (Final Act. 3). The
Examiner found the combination of Byers and the AAP A discloses every
feature in claim 1 claims except for an ability to power down once digital
data of a respective pixel row is output to an output latch such that pixel data
of a subsequent pixel row is converted while the output digital data of the
respective pixel row is processed. (Final Act. 3). The Examiner found
Sugie discloses a comparator circuit (52) that is powered up and powered
down according to an enable signal (104) and may be turned off for power
saving purposes. (Final Act. 3; Sugie i-f 63, Fig 1 ). The Examiner concluded
it would have been obvious to provide the comparator of Byars with a power
down signal once digital data of a respective pixel row is output to an output
latch for the purpose of saving power. (Final Act. 4).
3
Appeal2014-005588
Application 13/203,220
Appellant's arguments fail to identify a reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
2011) ("[E]ven assuming that the examiner had failed to make a prima facie
case, the Board would not have erred in framing the issue as one of
'reversible error."').
Appellant argues the claim requires a specific condition that is
fundamentally different and not related to the system not being in use. (App.
Br. 7). According to Appellant:
[T]he claimed feature relates to the comparators being powered down
(e.g., Cpup pulse) once the output data (Cop) is settled (non-shaded portion
of Cop) and the output data is latched (OpDala) .... Because Appellant's
claim 1 encompasses the condition that the comparator is powered down
"while the output digital data of the respective pixel row is processed," one
of skill in the art would have understood that the comparator is powered
down even though the "system" is still operational.
(App. Br. 7-8).
Appellant argues the combination of Byers, the AAP A, and Sugie as
combined by the Examiner, would have guided the skilled artisan to only
tum off the comparators when the enable signal EN was low such as when
the light sensing array or motor was not operational. (App. Br. 7).
Appellant's argument is without persuasive merit. Sugie discloses
when the enable signal EN is at a low level, the pre-driver circuit 62 and/or
the voltage comparator 52 may be turned off for power saving purposes.
(Sugie i-f 63). A person of ordinary skill would have recognized this
disclosure does not require only turning off the comparators as suggested by
Appellant. Appellant has not argued it would have been unobvious to
configure the comparator of Byars as suggested by the Examiner.
4
Appeal2014-005588
Application 13/203,220
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 1-
7 and 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the
Examiner and given above.
Rejection II
Regarding the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we
affirm this rejection advanced by the Examiner. Appellant has only
presented substantive arguments as to independent claim 1 (rejection
discussed above) and have not otherwise presented separate arguments on
the merits for the rejection of claim 8. In this regard, Appellant does not
assert non-obviousness based on the additional limitations set forth claim 8
subject to this rejection by explaining how the additional reference applied
thereto by the Examiner fails to establish the obviousness of the additional
features recited in this separately rejected dependent claim. Because we do
not find Appellant's arguments persuasive as to independent claim 1, it
follows that these arguments are unpersuasive as to claim 8.
ORDER
The Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 1-8 and 11-15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
5
Appeal2014-005588
Application 13/203,220
AFFIRMED
6