Ex Parte TAY

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

12893032 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/893,032 09/29/2010
83109 7590 06/30/2016
HiokNam Tay
Blk 409 Woodlands Street 41#13-109
Singapore, 730409
SINGAPORE
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
HiokNamTAY
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.
P003C 3351
EXAMINER
DANIELS, ANTHONY J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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):
htay@candelamicro.com
hioknam@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte HIOKNAM TAY
Appeal 2015-001831
Application 12/893,032
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1 and 2. The Examiner has objected to claims 3-5 and 22 as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims. Final Act. 5. The Examiner has allowed claims 10-14
and 19-21. Id. Claims 6-9 and 15-18 have been cancelled. App. Br. 18-
19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appeal2015-001831
Application 12/893,032
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a complimentary metal oxide
semiconductor ("CMOS") image sensor with processor controlled
integration time. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed language italicized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An image sensor that is connected to a processor that
inputs digital image data for an image detected by the image
sensor and outputs a plurality of control signal edges to the
image sensor, the control signal edges including a first signal
edge separated from a second signal edge by a control interval,
compnsmg:
a pixel array that includes a plurality of rows of pixels and
generates the image; and,
a selection circuit that selects a row of said pixel array to
generate and retrieve pixel data from said pixel array by resetting
and reading said row of said pixel array, a time interval between
the resetting and reading of said row being controlled by the
control interval.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Gowda et al. us 5,877,715 Mar. 2, 1999
Fossum et al. US 2001/0040635 Al Nov. 15, 2001
REJECTION
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fossum in view of Gowda. Final Act. 3--4.
2
Appeal2015-001831
Application 12/893,032
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We agree with
Appellant's arguments regarding claims 1 and 2.
The Examiner finds Fossum teaches an image sensor (Figure 3) that is
connected to a timing and control circuit 302 (a processor) that outputs a
plurality of control signal edges to the image sensor. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner further finds because the timing and control circuitry 302 is a
processor because it performs the function of the claimed processors-that
is, outputting control signal edges. Ans. 5.
The Examiner notes Fossum does not teach a processor that "inputs
digital image data for an image detected by the image sensor." Final Act. 5.
However, the Examiner finds Gowda teaches such a processor and a person
of ordinary skill in the art would modify Fossum to include the Gowda
processor. Final Act. 4. More specifically, the Examiner finds that the
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Gowda's processing
electronics would not be located on Possum's chip---which is where the
timing and control circuit 302 is located-but would be placed outside of the
chip. Ans. 4--5.
Appellant argues that timing and control circuit 302 is not a processor.
App. Br. 15-17. Because the timing and control circuit 302 does not
perform any image processing, Appellant argues the Examiner erred in
combining it with the processing image storage electronics that perform
image processing. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 3. According to Appellant, the
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a processor refers to
3
Appeal2015-001831
Application 12/893,032
"either a whole chip or part of a chip that performs processing tasks, in this
case processing image data. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 2-3.
During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation while reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We agree with
Appellant that a processor must perform some type of processing.
We disagree with the Examiner as the Examiner has not identified
sufficient evidence or provided sufficient explanation as to how the Fossum
timing and control circuit teaches "a processor" as recited in claim 1.
Fossum recites that "[t]iming and control circuit 302 drives row electronics
310, and column electronics 320." Fossum i-f 44 (emphasis omitted).
Fossum does not, however, describe in any detail a processor that receives
digital image data from an image sensor. Possum's timing and control
circuit (302) receives inputs (such as CLK, RUN, DEFAULT, etc.) but not
digital image data. Gowda describes processing electronics (Gowda Fig. 3)
that receive digital data from the image sensor (through analog-to-digital
converters (40)), but does not explain the processing electronics (processor)
in any detail. Thus, the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how one of
ordinary skill in the relevant art would have combined Fossum and Gowda
at the time of Appellant's invention to produce the disputed functionality-a
processor receiving digital image data and outputting control signal edges.
Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments
advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant's other
arguments.
4
Appeal2015-001831
Application 12/893,032
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along with the rejection of dependent claim
2.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's decisions rejecting
claims 1 and 2.
REVERSED
5