Ex Parte Lai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2018

12689905 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/689,905 01/19/2010
60601 7590 07/25/2018
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chun-Hung Lai
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.
0941/2387PUS1 6757
EXAMINER
JEBARI, MOHAMMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2018 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHUN-HUNG LAI, CHI-XIANG TSENG, CHEN-WEI LU,
and
I-HSIU CHEN
Appeal2017-009649
Application 12/689 ,905 1
Technology Center 2400
Before LARRY J. HUME, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify VisEra Technologies Company Limited as the Real
Party in Interest. (Br. 2.)
Appeal2017-009649
Application 12/689,905
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a 3D
optical imaging system including a 3D color image sensor with a light filter
array layer having color filter patterns and infrared (IR) light filter patterns.
(Abstract.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A three dimensional (3D) color image sensor,
compnsmg:
a semiconductor substrate, having a plurality of first
photodiodes and a plurality of second photodiodes, and a wiring
layer formed under the first photodiodes and the second
photodiodes; and
a light filter array layer disposed on the first photodiodes
and the second photodiodes, having a plurality of color filter
patterns and a plurality of (infrared) IR light filter patterns,
wherein each of the IR light filter patterns receives depth
information of 3D color image of an object and corresponds to
the first photodiode, each of the color filter patterns receives
color image information of 3D color image of the object and
corresponds to the second photodiode, a size of every single
one of the IR light filter patterns is larger than a size of every
single one of the color filter patterns, and all the color filter
patterns are isolated from each other by the IR light filter
patterns.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 7-9, 13, and 17-21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Toda (US 2008/0087800 Al, pub.
Apr. 17, 2008) and Bamji (US 7,375,803 Bl, issued May 20, 2008). (Final
Act. 4--8.)
2
Appeal2017-009649
Application 12/689,905
The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Toda, Bamji, and Tsuchida (US 2010/0177231 Al, pub.
July 15, 2010). (Final Act. 8.)
The Examiner rejected claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Toda, Bamji, and Lee et al. (US 2010/0033611 Al, pub.
Feb. 11, 2010) ("Lee"). (Final Act. 9.)
The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Toda, Bamji, and Maeda et al. (US 2003/0128889 Al,
pub. July 10, 2003) ("Maeda"). (Final Act. 10.)
The Examiner rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Toda, Bamji, and Aotsuka (US 2004/0105017 Al, publ.
June 3, 2004). (Final Act. 10-11.)
The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Toda, Bamji, and JungChak Ahn et al., Advanced image
sensor technology for pixel scaling down toward 1.0µm (Invited), IEEE
(2008) ("Ahn"). (Final Act. 11-12.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments present the following issue: 2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Toda and
Bamji teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitation, "a size of
every single one of the IR light filter patterns is larger than a size of every
single one of the color filter patterns, and all the color filter patterns are
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 28, 2017) (herein, "Br.");
the Final Office Action (mailed Nov. 15, 2016) (herein, "Final Act."); and
the Examiner's Answer (mailed May 31, 2017) (herein, "Ans.") for the
respective details.
3
Appeal2017-009649
Application 12/689,905
isolated from each other by the IR light filter patterns," and the
commensurate limitation of independent claim 1 7. (Br. 9-12.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments,
and we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 4--12) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal
Brief. (Ans. 12-14.) We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by
the Examiner, and emphasize the following.
In finding that Toda and Bamji teach or suggest the limitation at issue,
the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Toda of a filter array illustrated in
Figure 2D reproduced below:
(D) ARRAY MODE 4
BK B BK R BK B BK R __ j
'"
G BK G BK G BK G BK 1
BK R BK B BK R BK B
""
G BK G BK G BK. G BK!
BK B BK R BK, B BK R
" ' "
G BK G BK G BK G BK
BK R BK B BK R BK B
G BK G BK G BK G BK
Figure 2D, reproduced above, illustrates a filter array including red, green,
and blue color filters (designated "R," "G," and "B," respectively), and
infrared filters (designated "BK"). (Final Act. 4--5; Toda Fig. 2D, ,r 96.)
4
Appeal2017-009649
Application 12/689,905
The Examiner also relies on the disclosure in Bamji of a filter array
illustrated in Figure 1 C below:
..............
G B G 8 G B
R G R G
G G
R R
l
G .B G
R G
G
R
Figure 1 C, reproduced above, also illustrates a filter array including red,
green, and blue color filters (designated "R," "G," and "B," respectively),
and near infrared filters ( designate "NIR"). (Final Act. 5; Bamji Fig. 1 C.)
Appellants argue Figure 2D of Toda does not teach the claim
requirement, "all the color filter patterns are isolated from each other by the
IR light filter patterns," but rather shows the green filter contacts the blue
filter and the red filter at their comers. (Br. 10.) However, this argument is
unpersuasive as focusing on the disclosure of Toda alone, whereas the
Examiner relies on the combination of Toda and Bamji. Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here,
the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination
of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the combination of
references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee's invention
to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
5
Appeal2017-009649
Application 12/689,905
( CCP A 19 81). In this case, enlarging the infrared filters of Toda, as taught
by Bamji, ensures the required isolation. (Ans. 14.)
Appellants also argue enlarging the BK filters of Toda would
"destroy" the pattern layout of Toda and would "reduce the layout density of
G pixels, and the resolution of a visible color image would be deteriorated,"
thus, rendering Toda unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. (Br. 12.)
However, we agree with the Examiner:
[C]hanging the size of Toda's infrared filters to 4 times the size
of color filters (as taught by Bamji) will not destroy the pattern
layout of Toda (as argued by the Appellant[s]) because those
skilled in the art can modify the size of IR filters without
changing the Bayer pattern in the layout of fig. 2D of Toda,
since the Bayer pattern is related to the density of green filters
being twice as many as red or blue filters and not related to the
size of the filters, especially IR filters.
(Ans. 14.) Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1 and 1 7.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejections of claims 1 and 17 over Toda and Bamji. We also sustain the
obviousness rejections of claims 2-5, 7-9, 13, and 18-21 over Toda and
Bamji, of claim 6 over Toda, Bamji, and Tsuchida, of claims 10-12 over
Toda, Bamji, and Lee, of claim 14 over Toda, Bamji, and Maeda, of
claim 15 over Toda, Bamji, and Aotsuka, and of claim 16 over Toda, Bamji,
and Ahn, which rejections are not argued separately with particularity.
(Br. 13.)
6
Appeal2017-009649
Application 12/689,905
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-21.
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)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7