11907793 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2016)

Ex Parte Lin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 23, 2016

11907793 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2016)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 11/907,793 10/17/2007 Chien-Pang Lin 0941-2085PUS1 6353 77032 7590 08/23/2016 Joe McKinney Muncy 4000 Legato Raod, Suite 310 Fairfax, VA 22033 EXAMINER SENGDARA, VONGSAVANH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2829 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2016 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 CHIEN-PANG LIN, CHIN-POH PANG, WU-CHIEH LIU, and SHIU-FANG YEN ________________ Appeal 2014-005320 Application 11/907,793 Technology Center ________________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 20, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim an image sensor. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. An image sensor device, comprising: a color filter having red, green and blue color filters with a same thickness; a first transparent silicon-based layer with a single convex surface disposed on the color filter layer, wherein the first transparent silicon-based layer on at least two adjacent color filters has different thicknesses; and Appeal 2014-005320 Application 11/907,793 2 a micro lens array disposed on the single convex surface of the first transparent silicon-based layer, such that the first transparent silicon-based layer is between the color filter layer and the micro lens array. The References Kim (Kim ’108) US 2005/0280108 A1 Dec. 22, 2005 Kim (Kim ’505) US 2007/0145505 A1 June 28, 2007 Park US 2007/0155083 A1 July 5, 2007 The Rejection Claims 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kim ’108 in view of Park and Kim ’505. OPINION We affirm the rejection. The Appellants argue the claims as a group (Br. 5–10). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1, which is the sole independent claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2012). Kim ’108 discloses a prior art image sensor comprising a red/green/blue color filter (19), an overcoat (20) on the color filter (19) “to overcome the problem of step coverage, to obtain uniformity of micro- lenses, and to control a focal distance” (¶ 17), and dome-shaped micro lenses (21) on the overcoat (20) “to condense the light to the color filter array” (id.) (¶¶ 14, 17; Fig. 2). Park discloses a prior art image sensor comprising a red/green/blue color filter (14), a planarization layer (15) on the color filter (14), and micro lenses (16) on the planarization layer (¶¶ 8, 9; Fig. 1), and teaches that because the planarization layer (15) is flat, “the range of a real image that can be captured is limited” (¶ 19). Park uses a single convex surfaced Appeal 2014-005320 Application 11/907,793 3 planarization layer (107) to increase the area of a real image that can be captured (¶ 64; Fig. 4). Kim ’505 discloses an image sensor comprising an oxide and/or nitride planarization layer (250) (¶¶ 2, 47; Fig. 6c). The Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have used a single convex surfaced overcoat (20) in Kim ’108’s image sensor because the desired step coverage and resulting uniformity of the micro lenses would not be obtained (Br. 6). Park’s Figure 4 indicates that although the color filters (104, 105, 106) have steps, the single convex surfaced planarization layer (107) covers the steps such that the convex surface is smooth and, therefore, the micro lenses (110) thereon are uniform. The Appellants assert that Park attempts to adjust both the focal length (¶ 45) and focal point whereas Kim ’108 attempts to reach the correct focal distance (¶ 17), and that “Kim [’108] has no intention to change its focal point and to lose its microlens uniformity” (Br. 9). Kim ’108 discloses that one of the purposes of the overcoat layer (20) is “to control a focal distance” (¶ 17), not to reach a correct focal distance. Park’s planarization layer (107), due to its smooth surface (Fig. 4), provides control of focal distance. One of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, would have made Kim ’108’s overcoat (20) such that it has a smooth single convex surface to increase the area of a real image that can be captured as taught by Park (¶ 64) while maintaining micro lens uniformity. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (in making an obviousness determination one “can take account of the Appeal 2014-005320 Application 11/907,793 4 inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). The Appellants “note that Kim ’505 merely discloses that the planarization layer 250, which the Examiner interprets as the first transparent silicon-based layer recited in claim 1, is formed by an oxide and/or nitride layer, rather than a silicon-based layer” (Br. 10). Kim ’505 discloses that the substrate (100) and photodiodes (400) thereon for detecting red, green, and blue are silicon (¶¶ 42–43). Kim ’505 does not disclose that the oxide and/or nitride planarization layer (250) is silicon oxide and/or silicon nitride. However, in view of the use of silicon in other components, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, would have used silicon in the oxide and/or nitride planarization layer (250). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection. DECISION/ORDER The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kim ’108 in view of Park and Kim ’505 is affirmed. It is ordered that 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(a). AFFIRMED