Ex Parte Lindgren

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 2017

13265896 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017)

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. 13/265,896 10/24/2011 Leif Lindgren 12400-271 6471 40879 7590 BGL/Autoliv ASP 524 South Main Street Suite 200 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 EXAMINER ORTIZ CRIADO, JORGE L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2489 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2017 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 LEIF LINDGREN Appeal 2017-001925 Application 13/265,896 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—10, 12, and 13, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claim 11 has been canceled. Final Act. 1—2; App. Br. 2.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”) filed Oct. 24, 2011; Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed Nov. 17, 2016; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Dec. 7, 2016. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Sept. 20, 2016, and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) (“Final Act.”) mailed Mar. 7, 2016. Appeal 2017-001925 Application 13/265,896 Appellant’s Invention The invention at issue on appeal concerns vision methods and vehicle vision systems including two imaging devices, an electronic control unit configured to input window parameters, identifying an image overlap between the two image sensors, to each of the two image sensors, and each of the image sensors crops (cuts out) a window image corresponding to the image overlap identified by the window parameters. Spec. 2—9; Abstract. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 1. A vision system for a motor vehicle, comprising: two imaging devices, each in the form of an image sensor adapted to detect images from a region surrounding the motor vehicle, and an electronic control unit with an electronic processing means for processing image data provided by the two imaging devices, the electronic control unit being configured to input window parameters identifying an image overlap between the two image sensors to each of the two image sensors, wherein the electronic control unit is configured to calculate the window parameters in a moving vehicle from relative locations of a predetermined point in the images detected by the two imaging devices, and wherein each of the two image sensors cuts out an individual window image part corresponding to the overlap identified by the window parameters, by reducing an offset between the relative locations of the predetermined point within the individual window image parts and placing equal image contents at approximately equal vertical positions in the individual window parts, and then transmits to the electronic control unit only the individual window image part corresponding to the overlap smaller than the detected images. 2 Appeal 2017-001925 Application 13/265,896 Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1—3, 6—10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kleihorst (US 2010/0020178 Al, published Jan. 28, 2010). 2. The Examiner rejects claims 1—3, 6—10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kleihorst and Davey et al. (US 8,238,695 Bl, issued Aug. 7, 2012 (filed Dec.15, 2006)) (“Davey”). 3. The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kleihorst and Watanabe et al. (US 2004/0066965 Al, published Apr. 8, 2004) (“Watanabe”). ISSUE Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellant’s contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue before us follows: Does the Examiner err in finding that Kleihorst teaches or suggests “the electronic control unit. . . configured to input window parameters identifying an image overlap between the two image sensors to each of the two image sensors” and “each of the two image sensors cuts out an individual window image part corresponding to the overlap identified by the window parameters,” within the meaning of Appellant’s claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claim 12? ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 in view of Kleihorst or alternately Kleihorst and Davey. See Final Act. 4—6; Ans. 2—A. Appellant 3 Appeal 2017-001925 Application 13/265,896 contends that Kleihorst does not teach the disputed features of claim 1. App. Br. 6—9; Reply Br. 2—\. Specifically, Appellant contends that “[a]ny alignment takes place in the calibration means 716 after the images have been transmitted from the cameras 702 and 704 to the calibration means 716, and no input is provided from the calibration means 716 to the cameras 702 and 704.” App. Br. 7; see App. Br. 6—8; Reply Br. 2—\ (citing Kleihorst || 40-42; Fig. 8). We agree with Appellant that Kleihorst does not teach the disputed features of claim 1. In particular, we agree with Appellant that Kleihorst does not teach or suggest each camera (Fig. 8, elements 702 and 708) processing an image by cutting out an image corresponding to the image overlap identified by the window parameters that are input from the electronic control unit as required by claim 1. See Kleihorst || 40, 42; Fig. 8. As explained by Appellant, there is no disclosure in the Examiner’s cited portions of Kleihorst of any parameters or data provided from the calibration means to the cameras. App. Br. 6—8. Nor, is there any disclosure in the Examiner’s cited portions of Kleihorst of the cameras cropping or cutting out a portion of the produced images. Id. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding that Kleihorst teaches the disputed limitations of Appellant’s claim 1. Independent claim 12 includes limitations of commensurate scope. Dependent claims 2, 3, 6—10, and 13 depend on claims 1 and 12, respectively. We are also constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding that Kleihorst and Davey teach the limitations of Appellant’s claims 1—3, 6—10, 12, and 13, as Davey does not cure the 4 Appeal 2017-001925 Application 13/265,896 deficiencies of Kleihorst (supra). For these same reasons, we are also constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding that Kleihorst and Watanabe teach the limitations of Appellant’s claims 4 and 5. Dependent claims 4 and 5 depend on claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—10, 12, and 13. CONCLUSION Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—10, 12, and 13. REVERSED 5