Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12892467 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/892,467 09/28/2010 XinqiaoLiu
22500 7590 08/29/2016
BAE SYSTEMS
PO BOX 868
NHQl-719
NASHUA, NH 03061-0868
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.
BAEP-1728 (54936) 2274
EXAMINER
KHAN, USMAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2662
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2016 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 XINQIAO LIU, FENG XIAO,
and BOYD FOWLER
Appeal2014-001194
Application 12/892,467
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-16. App. Br. 1. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). We affirm in part.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Action mailed March 5,
2013, Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed June 26, 2013, the Examiner's Answer
(Ans.) mailed September 18, 2013, and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed
October 24, 2013.
Appeal2014-001194
Application 12/892,467
Invention
Appellants' invention relates to "a hybrid imaging array and method
for using the same." Spec. i-f 8. In particular, the low-light imaging array
can be used with the color imaging array to provide a color image with
reduced noise. Id.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis:
1. An imaging array comprising:
a low-light imaging array comprising:
a plurality of rows and columns of low-light pixels; and
a low-light processor comprising a plurality of low-light bit
lines, each low-light pixel in each column of low-light pixels
being connected to one of said low-light bit lines corresponding
to that column of low-light pixels; and
a color imaging array comprising:
a plurality of rows and columns of color pixels; and
a color processor comprising a plurality of color bit lines,
each color pixel in each column of color pixels being connected
to one of said color bit lines corresponding to that column of
color pixels,
wherein each low-light pixel comprises a photodiode that is
characterized by a first area and wherein each color pixel
comprises a photodiode that is characterized by a second area,
said second area being less than said first area.
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Wang
Fukuyoshi
Rafferty
US 2006/0274171 Al
US 2007 /0045517 Al
US 2010/0012841 Al
The Rejections
Dec. 7, 2006
Mar. 1, 2007
Jan. 21, 2010
Claims 1---6 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Wang. Final Act. 4--9.
2
Appeal2014-001194
Application 12/892,467
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wang and Rafferty. Final Act. 9-11.
Claims 8-102 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wang, Rafferty, and Fukuyoshi. Final Act. 11-14.
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
For independent claim 1, Appellants present two main arguments.
First, Appellants argue that Wang fails to disclose area of the color pixel's
photodiode is less than low-light pixel's photodiode. App. Br. 6-7; Reply
Br. 2. Second, Appellants assert Wang does not disclose bit lines or that all
the pixels in a column of monochrome pixels are connected to the same bit
line and all the pixels in a column of color pixels are connected to the same
bit line. App. Br. 7-8. Specifically, Appellants contend "the Examiner has
not pointed to any teaching that vertical lines in interconnect buses 262
include two different vertical lines for reading out the pixels, one for the
color pixels in a column and the other for the monochrome pixels." App.
Br. 7.
Appellants group claim 11 with claim 1 (see App. Br. 6-13), and we
group claims 1 and 11 together, treating claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ISSUE
Under§ 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Wang discloses:
2 Although the rejection's heading does not include claim 10 (Final Act. 11 ),
the Examiner discusses claim 10 in the rejection (Final Act. 13).
3
Appeal2014-001194
Application 12/892,467
( 1) "each low-light pixel comprises a photodiode that is characterized
by a first area and wherein each color pixel comprises a photodiode that is
characterized by a second area, said second area being less than said first
area"
'
(2) "each low-light pixel in each column of low-light pixels being
connected to one of said low-light bit lines corresponding to that column of
low-light pixels," and
(3) "each color pixel in each column of color pixels being
connected to one of said color bit lines corresponding to that column of
color pixels"?
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1, which recites in pertinent part, "each
low-light pixel comprises a photodiode that is characterized by a first area
and wherein each color pixel comprises a photodiode that is characterized by
a second area, said second area being less than said first area." When
construing this limitation, the Examiner discusses the area of the "second
area of all of the monochrome pixels" and the "first area of all of the color
pixels." Ans. 4. We agree with Appellants that claim 1 does not recite an
area of the pixels but rather that each low-light pixel has "a photodiode that
is characterized by a first area" and each color pixel has "a photodiode that
is characterized by a second area." App. Br. 7.
However, putting aside the Examiner's claim construction, Wang
teaches the disputed recitation. The Examiner relies on paragraph 94 (Final
Act. 4; Ans. 4), which discusses the monochrome pixels 250M and color
4
Appeal2014-001194
Application 12/892,467
pixels 250C in Figures 3A-D. See Wang iii! 90-94, Figs. 3A-D. At
paragraph 94, Wang states color pixels have smaller dimension than the
monochrome pixels. Wang if 94 (stating "image sensor array 182A having
smaller dimensioned color sensitive pixels [250C] than monochrome pixels
[250M].").
Even so, Appellants rightly discuss how "a comparison of the pixel
areas is not determinative of the relative sizes of the photodiodes in those
pixels" and a pixel could have the same size photodiode and still be a
different size due to its additional circuitry. App. Br. 6. We agree that this
passage alone does not discuss the photodiode itself. Yet, as noted above,
this paragraph is discussing the embodiment shown in Figures 3A-D and
refers to monochrome pixels 250M and color pixels 250M, whose details are
further discussed at paragraphs 90 and 91. See Wang iii! 90-94, Figs. 3 A-D.
Moreover, the Examiner relies on photodetector 302 shown in Figures 3A-D
to teach the recited photodiodes (Ans. 4)- a finding undisputed by
Appellants (see App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2).
Turning to these passages, we see that the photodiode 302 of the
monochrome pixel 250M has a particular shape and takes up a first area that
is roughly half the size of the monochrome pixel. Wang if 90, Figs. 3A-B.
In contrast, the color pixel 250C has a photodiodes 302 that is less than half
the size of the color pixel. Wang if 91, Figs. 3C-D. Combining the
discussion that the color pixel can be smaller in area than the monochrome
pixel (Wang if 94) with the figures showing the photodetector for the color
pixel having less area within its pixel than its counterpart for the
monochrome pixel (Wang, Figs. 3B, D), we determine that Wang
5
Appeal2014-001194
Application 12/892,467
collectively teaches an embodiment where the photodiode for the color pixel
is necessarily smaller in area than that for the monochrome pixel.
Next, Appellants argue that Wang's reset lines are not the recited "bit
lines" in claim 1 and that "bit lines are lines on which the pixel signal values
are readout." App. Br. 7. We are not persuaded. As the Examiner notes
(Ans. 5), the claim does not recite "readout lines." Appellants also provide
no citation from the disclosure to support that the recited bit lines are limited
to readout lines. App. Br. 7. Further, we find no evidence that the
disclosure defines a "bit line" such that our construction must be limited as
argued by Appellants. Granted, the Specification describes and shows an
example of "vertical" bit lines 76 as argued (App. Br. 7). See Spec. i-fi-137-
38, Fig. 4. Although this informs our construction of the claimed "bit lines,"
we decline to import such an embodiment into claim 1, which fails to recite
this physical arrangement.
Appellants acknowledge the Examiner relies on various passages in
Wang to teach the disputed "each low-light pixel in each column ... being
connected to one of said low-light bit lines" and "each color pixel in each
column ... being connected to one of said color bit lines" in claim 1. App.
Br. 7; Ans. 5 (citing Wang i-fi-f 14, 30, 41--42, 96, 99, 107, 117-18, 120);
Final Act. 2. For purposes of illustration, we focus on cited paragraphs 117
and 118, which discuss Figures 7 A-B. Wang teaches multiple sets of reset
control lines for the monochrome pixels 250M independent of the color
pixel 250C. Wang i-fi-f 117-18, Figs. 7 A-B. These are shown in Figure 7 A-
B as 262, 262R-M, 262R-C. Id. Line 262R-M is a line connected to
monochrome pixels 250M, and line 262R-C is a separate line connected to
color pixels 250C. See id. Figure 7 A further shows lines 262, which
6
Appeal2014-001194
Application 12/892,467
represent both 262R-M and 262R-C (see Fig. 7B), connect to "COLUMN
CIRCUITRY." Wang, Figs. 7A-B. As such, Wang discloses each of the
low-light pixels in each column are connected to one low-light bit line and
each color pixel in each column is connected to one of the color bit lines as
recited.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of ( 1) independent claims 1 and 11, and (2) dependent claims
5 and 6 not argued separately.
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Appellants repeat arguments presented for claim
1, for which we determine are not persuasive. App. Br. 8. Appellants
additionally assert that the Examiner "has not pointed to any teaching that
the row select lines of Wang cause the color pixels in a corresponding row to
be connected to corresponding reset lines and the monochrome pixels in that
row are caused to be connected to corresponding monochrome reset line."
Id. (italics added). We disagree. The Examiner cited to various Figures to
teach claim 2. See Final Act. 5 (citing Wang, Figs. IA, 17 A-B). Appellants
fail to dispute these particular findings. Additionally, this assertion by
Appellants, which amounts to merely pointing out -vvhat clairn 2 recites and
then asserting that Wang fails to teach this limitation, is not considered a
separate argument for patentability. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants present new arguments concerning
claim 2, namely, that the claim requires two lines for each class of pixel-
one line is a row select line and one line is a bit line. Reply Br. 2-3. Yet,
arguments raised in the Reply Brief for the first time or not in response to an
7
Appeal2014-001194
Application 12/892,467
argument raised in the Examiner's Answer will not be considered.
37 C.F .R. § 41.41 (b )(1 ). Although we note that the Examiner responds to
Appellants' argument for claim 2, the discussion in the Reply Brief
concerning the two lines recited in claim 2 is not a response to argument
raised in the Answer. See Ans. 5 (discussing bit lines and that the claim fails
to recite readout lines).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 3 and 4
Claim 3 recites in pertinent part "said variable gain amplifier having a
gain that is set in response to an estimate of charge stored in a pixel currently
connected to that bit line." Among other arguments, Appellants contend that
the gain in Wang "is set manually by a user, not in response to an estimate of
charge stored in a pixel currently connected to the bit line." App. Br. 9.
Additionally, Appellants argue that the gain is based on a particular
configuration in Table 3. Id. We agree.
In the Final Action, the Examiner relies on various portions of Wang
to teach this recitation. Final Act. 5 (citing Wang i165, Figs. IA, 17 A-B,
and element 1084). Granted, the Figures show a gain circuit 1084 but do not
demonstrate a gain amplifier having a gain in response to an estimate of
charge. See Wang, Figs. 1 A, 17 A-B. Paragraph 165 discusses capturing a
color image using various imaging parameters (e.g., exposure, gain, and
illumination intensity). See Wang i-f 165. But, the Examiner provides no
explanation how these image parameters relate to "an estimate of charge
stored in a pixel currently connected to that bit line [corresponding to a
column of color pixels]" as recited. Final Act. 5.
8
Appeal2014-001194
Application 12/892,467
The Examiner responds to Appellants' argument by addressing that
claim 3 does not require that the gain be set automatically. Ans. 7. Even if
true, this response does not address how Wang teaches the recited gain is set
in response to an estimate of charge as recited. At best, the Examiner states
the gain is set "depending on the signal." Ans. 7 (citing Wang i-fi-181, 139,
163). The Examiner finds that a signal is "an estimate of charge." But even
presuming the Examiner is correct, the Examiner has not further explained
how these signals are an estimate of charge "stored in a pixel currently
connected to that bit line [corresponding to a column of color pixels]" and
how the recited gain is set in response to this estimate as recited. See Reply
Br. 3.
As such, the Examiner's explanation does not address adequately the
entire claim limitation, establishing a prima facie case for claim 3.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in
the rejection of (1) claim 3, and (2) dependent claim 4 for similar reasons.
Claim 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and recites "forming an estimated
image with said low-light imaging array and using said estimated image to
set parameters used in reading out said color imaging array." Appellants
argue Wang teaches using predetermined settings for gain and other
exposure controls and that there is no discussion "of setting a gain based on
an estimated image obtained with the monochrome array." App. Br. 8-9.
We disagree.
As noted by Appellants (App. Br. 8), the Examiner relies on
paragraph 165 to teach this limitation. Final Act. 8 (citing Wang i-f 165,
Figs. IA, 17 A-B). Wang specifically discusses increasing the illumination
9
Appeal2014-001194
Application 12/892,467
intensity during capture of color image data relative to the intensity during
capture of monochrome image data to compensate for the signal reduction
affect of color filters. Wang i-f 165. That is, Wang teaches the captured,
monochrome image data impact the captured, color image data and are used
to set parameters used in reading out the color imaging array. See id.
Additionally, Wang further discusses a circuit capturing a plurality of
parameters or test frames of image data (e.g., an estimated image) and are
processed to determine the same parameters discussed in paragraph 165
(e.g., exposure, gain, illumination). Wang i-fi-1139, 165, cited in Ans. 6. As
such, Wang teaches forming an estimated image with the low-light imaging
array and using this image to set parameters used in reading out the color
imaging array recited in claim 12.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants reassert that Wang does not teach using
a monochrome image to set parameters of the color image. Reply Br. 3. We
disagree for the previous-stated reasons.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of claim 12.
Claim 13
Claim 13 was grouped with claim 3 but differs in scope. Claim 13
depends from claim 12 and further recites "wherein said estimated image is
used to set a gain for said variable gain amplifier," rather than the gain is set
in response to an estimate of charge as recited in claim 3. Even so,
Appellants group the arguments for claim 3 with claim 13. App. Br. 9-10.
As such, Appellants' argument concerning Wang failing to set a gain in
response to an estimate of electric charge is not commensurate with claim
13.
10
Appeal2014-001194
Application I2/892,467
Appellants additionally argue that Wang's gain amplifier is not
connected to reset lines or the "color processor comprises a variable gain
amplifier coupled to one of said color bit lines" as is also recited in claim I 3.
App. Br. 9. We disagree. Figure IA shows gain circuit I084 connected to
column circuitry 270 and Figures 7 A-B, in tum, show column circuitry 270
is connected to lines 262 and 262R-C. See Wang i-f 8I, Figs. IA, 7 A, cited
in part in Final Act. 8. Because claim I3 does not require a direct
connection between the gain amplifier and the recited bit line, we determine
that Wang teaches the recited gain amplifier connected to one of the color bit
lines as mapped by the Examiner.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of claim I3.
Claim 14
Claim I 4 depends from claim I 2 and further recites "said color image3
comprises a plurality of pixel signal values and corresponding variable gain
amplifier values." The Examiner again relies on paragraph I 65 of Wang to
teach this limitation. Final Act. 9 (citing Wang i-f I65, Figs. IA, I 7A-B, and
item I084). Appellants contend that Wang's color image does not have
different gain values for different pixels. App. Br. IO. However, we note
that claim I 4 recites that the pixel signal values have corresponding variable
gain amplifier values without distinguishing the amplifier values as
different. As such, Appellants improperly narrow the scope of the claim.
3 The phrase, "said color image," is not found in claims I I or I2, from
which claim I4 depends directly or indirectly. Claims I I and I2 recite a
"color imaging array."
11
Appeal2014-001194
Application 12/892,467
Cited Figures 1 A, 17 A, and 17 B show gain circuit 1084 connected to
image sensor array 182A's column circuitry 270. Wang i-f 81, Figs. IA,
17 A-B. Additionally, Wang teaches that the imaging parameters of the
captured color image data have a specific gain parameter. Wang i-f 165. In
the embodiments in Wang where the multiple color pixels are used (e.g.,
Fig. 7 A), the color imaging array will have "a plurality of pixel signal
values" as recited. Wang, Fig. 7 A. Additionally, although the gain value for
each pixel in Wang may be the same, the plurality of signal values for each
pixel has a corresponding variable gain amplifier value. As broadly as
recited, Wang therefore teaches "said color image comprises a plurality of
pixel signal values and corresponding variable gain amplifier values" as
recited in claim 14.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of claim 14.
Claim 15
Claim 15 depends from claim 12 and further recites "said estimated
image is used to set an exposure time for each row in said color imaging
array, at least two of said rows having different exposure times." Appellants
argue that the cited portions of Wang do not teach individual rows in an
image having different exposures and that the exposures are determined by
an estimated image. App. Br. 11. For the following reason, we are
persuaded.
The Examiner cites to various paragraphs in Wang. Final Act. 9
(citing Wang i-fi-197-98, 125, 159). Referring to Figures 5A-F and Figures
7 A-B, the Examiner further states that exposures timing for color and
12
Appeal2014-001194
Application 12/892,467
monochrome pixels "are in an alternating fashion" and "the exposure timing
will be different for at least two of the rows" in these figures. Ans. 9.
We agree that some rows in Figures 5C-F, for example, will have
different exposures. Wang, Figs. 5C-F. For example, Wang discloses a row
with monochrome pixels have one exposure time (Wang i-fi-197-98, Fig. 5C)
and a row with a color/monochrome pixel mix having another exposure
timing. However, each row having color (e.g., each row in said color
imaging array as recited) have the same pattern (e.g., Figures 5C-F) and thus
is not clear that "at least two of said rows" will have different exposures
times as recited. On the other hand, paragraph 125 of Wang discusses
Figures 15A-D, which shows at least two different exposures times for rows
of imaging sensor array 182B. Compare Wang i-f 125, Fig. 15A (element
354), with Wang, Fig. 15B (element 354').
Even so, the Examiner has not explained how this discussion in Wang
discloses "said estimated image" formed with the low-light imaging array is
used to set an exposure time for each row in the color imaging array as
recited. That is, as understood, an estimated image for a low-light imaging
array in Wang is formed by capturing the image data and using its
parameters discussed at paragraph 165. Wang i-f 165. The Examiner has not
sufficiently explained how this image data or parameters is used to set the
exposure times discussed in other passages of Wang.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in
the rejection of claim 15.
13
Appeal2014-001194
Application 12/892,467
THE OBVIOUSNESS OBJECTIONS
Claims 7 and 16
Claim 7 depends indirectly from claim 1 and recites "said color filter
comprises an infrared filter that blocks light with wavelengths greater than
700nm from reaching said photodiode in said color pixel." Appellants first
argue that Wang does not teach the limitations of the base claims. App. Br.
11. We disagree for reasons previously stated. Appellants next contend
Rafferty does not provide the missing teachings. App. Br. 11. Specifically,
Appellants argue that "the Examiner has not pointed to any place in Rafferty
that teaches the missing teachings discussed above, no less a manner or
motivation for changing the teachings of Rafferty to include those missing
teachings." App. Br. 12. We disagree.
The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 16 based on Wang and Rafferty.
Final Act. 9-11. The Examiner states Wang teaches a color filter but fails to
teach a filter having all the properties recited in claim 7, turning to Rafferty.
Final Act. 9-10 (citing Rafferty i-fi-f 10-12, 43, 54, 102-103). The Examiner
further determines that one skilled in the art would have combined the
teachings of Wang and Rafferty to improve image quality. Final Act. 10;
Ans. 11-12. We find these findings and conclusions reasonable and have
not been sufficiently rebutted.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of claim 7 and claim 16, which recites similar limitations.
Claims 8-10
Claims 8-10 depend from claim 7 directly or indirectly and are
rejected based on Wang, Rafferty, and Fukuyoshi. Final Act. 11-14. Claim
14
Appeal2014-001194
Application 12/892,467
8 further recites, in pertinent part "said infrared filter comprises a layer of
metal having holes therein." The Examiner relies on Fukuyoshi for this
feature. Final Act. 12 (citing Fukuyoshi i-f 12); Ans. 13. Appellants argue
that the Fukuyoshi does not teach a layer of metal or that the layer has holes.
App. Br. 12.
Fukuyoshi describes an "absorbing type infrared cutting filter" that
has "copper" ions to absorb infrared rays. Fukuyoshi i-f 12. However, it is
not clear based on the record that this described type of filter with copper
ions is "a layer of metal" as recited. See generally Fukuyoshi. Even
presuming the stated filter creates a metal layer, we further agree with
Appellants that Fukuyoshi does not teach or suggest such a filter has holes.
Fukuyoshi has no explicit discussion of holes. See id. Responding to
the disputed features of the filter having holes (App. Br. 12), the Examiner
states "[a]s far as the holes go[,] these are holes for letting the light pass
through." Ans. 13. However, we are unsure what "these" is referring to or
whether the Examiner intends to refer to Fukuyoshi. Presuming the
Examiner finds that holes are inherent feature of Fukuyoshi's filter, we agree
with Appellants that solid layers can be a filter, permitting light to through,
but still not have holes. Reply Br. 3. As such, the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness for claim 8.4
Based on the record, we are constrained to reverse the rejection for
claim 8 and claims 9 and 10, which depend from claim 8.
4 Our conclusion is based on the record as presented. We leave to the
Examiner to determine whether one skilled in the art would have recognized
the discussed filters in Wang, Rafferty, or Fukuyoshi to be functional
equivalents to claimed filter with holes.
15
Appeal2014-001194
Application 12/892,467
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11-14
under § 102 and claims 7 and 16 under § 103.
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 4, and 15 under§ 102 and
claims 8-10 under § 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-16 is affirmed in part.
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).
AFFIRMED IN PART
16