Ex Parte ThorneDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 201613203220 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation