Ex Parte Spears et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 25, 2012

09769721 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte KURT E. SPEARS and DOUGLAS L. FRANZ
_____________

Appeal 2009-013731
Application 09/769,721
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JOHN A. JEFFERY Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-013731
Application 09/769,721
2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 and 4 through 6; claims 2, 3, 7, and 8 have been canceled; and
claim 9 has been allowed.1
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a photosensor assembly that has charge
transfer gates which are segmented into sections and are used to transfer
charges from photosensors to shift registers. See page 3 of Appellants’
Specification and Figures 1A-1C (item 104 charge transfer gate, item 102
shift register), and Figures 3A and 3B (item 304 charge transfer gate, item
308 shift register). Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced
below:

1. A method of scanning, comprising:
exposing, an array of photosensors, to light, a first time;
activating a particular section of a charge transfer gate, where the
charge transfer gate has a plurality of sections, each section
individually controllable, and fewer than all the sections are activated;
transferring charges, from a contiguous block of the
photosensors, through the particular section of the charge transfer
gate, to a charge shift register;
exposing, the array of photosensors, to light, a second time;

transferring charges, from the contiguous block of photosensors,
through the particular section of the charge transfer gate, to the charge
shift register, so that charges from the contiguous block of
photosensors, from more than one exposure, are interleaved in the
charge shift register.

1 See Brief page 2, and Answer pages 2 and 7.
Appeal 2009-013731
Application 09/769,721
3

REFERENCES

Yu US 5,345,319 Sep. 06, 1994
Yonemoto US 6,441,851 B1 Aug. 27, 2002
Hynecek US 6,459,077 B1 Oct. 01, 2002

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Yonemoto. Answer 3-42.
The Examiner has rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Yu. Answer 4-5.
The Examiner has rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yonemoto in view of Hynecek. Answer 6.
The Examiner has rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yu in view of Hynecek. Answer 6.

ISSUES
Claim 1
Appellants argue on pages 4 and 5 of the Brief3 and pages 1 and 2 of
the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error.
Appellants’ arguments present us with the issue did the Examiner err in
finding Yonemoto teaches activating a particular section of a charge transfer
gate as recited in claim 1?

2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
April 23, 2007.
3 Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellants’ Brief dated January 22,
2007, and Reply Brief dated May 29, 2007.
Appeal 2009-013731
Application 09/769,721
4

Claim 5
Appellants argue on pages 5 and 6 of the Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 5 is in error. Appellants’ arguments present us with the
issue did the Examiner error in finding that Yu teaches interleaving charges
from contiguous blocks of one or more photosensors into a shift register as
claimed?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 4
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Brief, and we concur
with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding Yonemoto
teaches activating a particular section of a charge transfer gate as claimed.
Claim 1 recites that activating a particular section of a charge transfer gate,
where fewer than all sections are activated and transferring charge from a
block of photosensors through the particular section of the charge transfer
gate to a shift register. The Examiner finds the activation by signals V2a
and V2b which causes transfer of charge to the shift register (vertical CCD
2) meets the claimed section of a charge transfer device. Answer 7. We
disagree with the Examiner’s finding, and concur with the Appellants’
characterization of Yonemoto on page 2 of the Reply Brief. Thus, we
concur with Appellants’ reasoning that if one were to consider the sections
of the charge transfer gate activated by signals V2a and V2b, all of the gates
would be activated, and as such the claim limitation of the section being less
than all gates is not met. Accordingly, Appellants have persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection and we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1.
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 4 similarly
relies upon Yonemoto to teach the limitations of independent claim 1. Thus,
Appeal 2009-013731
Application 09/769,721
5

we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 for the same reasons
as claim 1.

Claim 5
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Brief, and we concur
with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding Yu teaches
interleaving charges from contiguous blocks of one or more photosensors as
claimed. The Examiner, in construing claim 5 states: “[n]othing in the claim
limits a charge shift register to have only one shift register.” Answer 8. We
disagree and consider this to be an unreasonable interpretation of the claim.
The claim on its face says “a shift register” which implies only one. This is
consistent with Appellants’ Specification and the teachings of Yu, see for
example col. 3, ll. 34-35, which discusses a pair of shift registers item 10,
not a shift register containing an upper and lower shift register as asserted by
the Examiner on page 6 of the Answer. Thus, we find no support for the
Examiner’s claim interpretation.
We recognize that the indefinite article “a” or “an” means “one or
more” in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase “comprising.”
KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
But where, as here, “the claim language and specification indicate that ‘a’
means one and only one, it is appropriate to construe it as such even in the
context of an open-ended ‘comprising’ claim.” Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d
1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Using the claim interpretation of a shift register meaning one shift
register, the Examiner has not shown that Yu teaches interleaving charge
from contiguous blocks of one or more photosensors into a shift register.
Appeal 2009-013731
Application 09/769,721
6

Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 5.
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 6 similarly
relies upon Yu to teach the limitations of independent claim 5. Thus we will
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 for the same reasons as claim
5.
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 4 through 6 is
reversed.

REVERSED

tj