Ex Parte Mahmoud et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 11, 2019

14169329 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/169,329 01/31/2014 Hossam Mahmoud
153508 7590 02/13/2019
Honigman LLP/Magna
650 Trade Centre Way
Suite 200
KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402
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.
MAG04 P-2218-423673 1035
EXAMINER
ABDOU TCHOUSSOU, BOUBACAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2489
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2019 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):
patent@honigman.com
tflory@honigman.com
asytsma@honigman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HOS SAM MAHMOUD, CHRISTIAN TRAUB,
and ARNO KRAPF 1
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, J. JOHN LEE, and ADAM J. PYONIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Magna Electronics
Inc. See App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from a rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm. 2
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a vehicle data recording system. Spec.,
Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with limitation labels added for ease of
reference, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A vision system for a vehicle, said vehicle vision system
compnsmg:
[(la)] at least one camera disposed at a vehicle equipped
with said vehicle vision system, wherein said at least one
camera has a field of view exterior the equipped vehicle and is
operable to capture image data;
[ ( 1 b)] an image processor operable to process image data
captured by said at least one camera;
[ (1 c)] wherein said vision system is operable to record
images captured by said at least one camera;
[ ( 1 d)] wherein said vision system controls operation of
said at least one camera;
[ (1 e)] wherein said vision system, responsive to a
determination that the equipped vehicle is in a parked state,
controls said at least one camera to capture frames of image
data at a first capture rate, and wherein said vision system does
not record images captured by said at least one camera at the
first capture rate;
[(If)] wherein, responsive to image processing by said
image processor of captured image data, said vision system
2 We refer to the Specification, filed January 31, 2014 ("Spec."); the Final
Office Action, mailed June 2, 2017 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief, filed
December 4, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed March 2,
2018 ("Ans.") and the Reply Brief filed April 30, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
compares a frame of captured image data to at least one
previous frame of captured image data;
[ ( 1 g)] wherein, responsive to said comparison
determining a change in the frames of captured image data
beyond a threshold degree of change when said at least one
camera is capturing frames of image data at said first capture
rate and when said vision system is not recording captured
images, (i) said vision system increases the capture rate to a
second capture rate, (ii) said at least one camera captures
frames of image data at said second capture rate and (iii) said
vision system starts recording images captured at said second
capture rate; and
[(lh)] wherein said vision system is operable to
determine a repeating movement occurring in a region
encompassed by the field of view of said at least one camera,
and wherein said vision system, responsive to determination of
the repeating movement over multiple frames of captured image
data, increases the threshold degree of change at least for
captured image data representative of that region.
REFERENCES
The following prior art is relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Pawlicki
Cooper
Zeng
Velarde
Dabholkar
Erhardt
Holz
US 2004/0016870 Al
US 2004/0212678 Al
US 2010/0198513 Al
US 2010/0265344 Al
US 2011/0148609 Al
US 2012/0105635 Al
US 2014/0192206 Al
REJECTIONS
Jan.29,2004
Oct. 28, 2004
Aug. 5, 2010
Oct. 21, 2010
June 23, 2011
May 3, 2012
July 10, 2014
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-5, 11-16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Erhardt, Velarde, and Cooper. Final Act. 4--14.
3
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
Claims 6, 7, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Erhardt, Velarde, Cooper, and Zeng. Final Act. 14--16.
Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Erhardt, Velarde, Cooper, and Dabholkar. Final Act. 16-
17.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Erhardt, Velarde, Pawlicki, and Holz. Final Act. 17-22.
ANALYSIS
Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
We adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-22), and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-18), and we concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis, adopting
the Examiner's argument numbering scheme for ease of reference.
Claim 1 : Argument 1
Limitation (1 e): "responsive to a determination that the equipped vehicle is
in a parked state"
The Examiner finds Erhardt' s disclosure of a user activating a security
mode when a vehicle is parked teaches the disputed limitation. Final Act. 5.
Appellants contend Erhardt's disclosure of user activation is "[i]n stark
contrast [to] the claimed vision system [which] alters its capture rate
responsive to a determination that the equipped vehicle is in a parked state."
App. Br. 15. According to Appellants "[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art
would readily recognize and understand that the determination that the
4
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
equipped vehicle is in a parked state claim limitation requires the vision
system itself to determine that the vehicle is parked." Id. The Examiner
responds, concluding the Specification does not support Appellants'
interpretation of the claims as requiring the disputed determination be made
by the control system. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds Erhardt's vision system
determines a vehicle is parked upon activation of the security mode,
teaching the disputed limitation. Id. Appellants reply, directing attention to
paragraphs 5 and 33 of the Specification as supporting vision system
determination of a parked state. Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
When construing claim terminology during prosecution before the Office,
claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification, reading claim language in light of the Specification as it
would have been 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). "Construing
claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant ... because
the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise
claim coverage." Id.
The portions of the Specification cited by Appellants in support of the
disputed determination that the equipped vehicle is in a parked state do not
specify what ( or who) performs the questioned determination, much less
how the determination is made. 3 See Spec.~~ 5, 33. Furthermore,
3 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider
whether the Specification provides written description support, and/or
whether the disputed limitations comply with the definiteness requirements
for means-plus-function recitations. See Vasudevan Software, Inc. v.
5
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
Appellants provide insufficient evidence or argument supporting a
conclusion that the disputed determination necessarily excludes user
interaction ( e.g., user activation of a security mode).
We are also unpersuaded because Appellants fail to explain why a
disclosure of a process including user interaction ( e.g., human determination
of a parked state) fails to render obvious the process when automated, e.g.,
by a vision system. Appellants' argument effectively amounts to arguing
that a manual task performed by a user-that of determining a vehicle is in a
parked state----cannot render obvious the same task being performed by the
vision system. Without further evidence or reasoning distinguishing the two,
broadly claiming an automatic way to replace a manual activity
accomplishing the same result typically is insufficient to distinguish an
automated process over a manual activity. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95
(CCPA 1958) ("[I]t is well settled that it is not 'invention' to broadly provide
a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has
accomplished the same result."). Therefore, for the above reasons and under
a broad but reasonable interpretation, we agree with the Examiner that
Erhardt's user activation of a security mode when a vehicle is parked teaches
the disputed limitation.
Claim 1 : Argument 2
Limitation (1 g): "determining a change in the frames of captured image
data beyond a threshold degree of change"
The Examiner finds Velarde' s motion detection unit 44 that
"determines that fast motion has occurred between two consecutive frames
MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Exparte Smith, Appeal
2012-007631 (PTAB Mar. 14, 2013) (informative).
6
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
when a single motion vector of block or macroblock exceeds a threshold
magnitude" teaches or suggests the disputed determining step. Final Act. 6
( emphasis omitted). Appellants contend determining that a single motion
vector exceeds a threshold magnitude is different than "determining a
change in the frames of captured image data beyond a threshold degree of
change" as claimed. App. Br. 16. The Examiner responds, finding Velarde's
motion detection unit 44 calculates a sum of absolute difference (SAD), a
sum of squared difference (SSD), a mean of absolute difference (MAD), a
mean of squared difference (MSD), or performs other difference calculations
to detect motion or scene changes between consecutive frames, thereby
teaching the disputed limitation. Ans. 5 ( citing Velarde ,r 54).
Appellants' contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error because it
fails to address the Examiner's findings. Merely reciting a claim limitation
and asserting it is not present falls short of identifying an error in the
Examiner's rejection as required on appeal. "Filing a Board appeal does not,
unto itself, entitle an appellant to de nova review of all aspects of a
rejection." Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (internal citations omitted). Arguments must address the
Examiner's action. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) ("The arguments shall
explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by
appellant."). In particular, Appellants do not explain why Velarde's motion
detection unit fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. The
Examiner's findings with respect to the disputed limitation are rational and
supported by the record evidence. Final Act. 6; Ans. 5. Thus, based on
Appellants' naked allegations of error without further explanation, we do not
agree there is any error in the Examiner's findings as to this limitation.
7
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
Claim 1 : Argument 3
Limitations (1 h): "said vision system is operable to determine a repeating
movement [and, in response], increases the threshold degree of change at
least for captured image data"
The Examiner finds Cooper's digital processor 104 compares an
amount of change between images to a threshold value and increases
threshold values if one or two pixels repeatedly result in a false generation of
motion flags, thereby teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation. Final
Act. 7 (citing Cooper, Fig. 3, ,r 22). Appellants contend Cooper discloses a
user programmable threshold, not a threshold determined by a vision system
responsive to repeated movements, as required by the claim. App. Br. 16.
The Examiner responds, finding Cooper's digital processor is operable to
determine repeating movement, and further finds Cooper discloses setting a
threshold based on an amount of movement. Ans. 6-7. Appellants reply,
arguing the following:
Independent claim 1 clearly requires that the vision system
determine the repeating movement, and responsive to the vision
system's determination of repeating movement, increases the
threshold of change. Such vision system operation is clearly not
disclosed or suggested by disclosure of a human user
performing the determination and response, and thus excludes
mere user programmable functions.
Reply Br. 4.
Appellants' contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error because,
inter alia, we disagree claim 1 excludes user programmable functions.
Claim 1 requires the vision system be operable to determine a repeated
movement and to respond to a determination of repeated movement by
increasing a threshold, but does not exclude user input in making the
determination. Furthermore, even if claim 1 were read to require a vision
8
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
system set a threshold without user input, Cooper's disclosure of setting a
threshold, although disclosed as manually performed, is not necessarily
limited to the disclosed manual method. That is, by disclosing that a digital
signal processor detects motion and that a threshold value is set to avoid the
false generation of motion flags, Cooper teaches or suggests that the signal
processor itself could also set or change a threshold value. See Venner, 262
F.2d at 95 (holding that broadly providing an automatic way to replace a
manual activity accomplishing the same result is not sufficient to distinguish
an automated process over the prior art.).
Claim 1 : Argument 4
Motivation for combining Erhardt and Velarde
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify
Erhardt' s automotive imaging system for reporting exception events (e.g.,
accidents, unauthorized usage, and security system events) to include
Velarde's (i) non-storage of images prior to a triggering event, (ii) inter-
frame motion detection, and (iii) threshold detection of an occurrence of a
fast motion between frames "to more effectively record the movement or
change and to optimize the memory and/or storage space." Final Act. 7
(citing Velarde ,r,r 3-5, 35). The Examiner further concludes it would have
been obvious to further modify Erhardt to include Cooper's method of
detecting repeating movement and changing a threshold value, to prevent
false wake ups and provide a power savings. Id. at 7-8 (citing Cooper ,r,r 22,
34, 44). Appellants contend the systems disclosed by Erhardt, Velarde, and
Cooper are dissimilar, and that "the combination is now being made by the
Examiner using hindsight reconstruction and using the present claims as a
9
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
template." App. Br. 17. The Examine responds, finding the three references
are all directed to capturing images and imaging systems, asserting "the
combination is NOT being made by the Examiner using hindsight
reconstruction." Ans. 8 (citing In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395
(CCPA 1971)4).
Appellants' contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error. In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[R]ejections on obviousness grounds ..
. must [include] some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness."), cited with approval in KSR
Int'! Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007). Here, in the absence of
sufficient argument to the contrary, we find the Examiner has articulated
reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to justify the legal
conclusion of obviousness. Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 8.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants' contentions are
unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1 and, for the same reasons, independent
claim 14 together with the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, and 11-13,
which are not argued separately with particularity.
Claim 4
"The vehicle vision system of claim 1, wherein, responsive to
said determination of a repeating movement, said vision system
4 "Any judgment on obviousness is ... necessarily a reconstruction based
upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only
knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the
claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only
from applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper." McLaughlin,
443 F.2d at 1395.
10
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
ignores the portion of captured image data that corresponds to
that region. "
The Examiner finds Cooper's deactivating or masking out of pixels
that are not of interest teaches the disputed limitation. Final Act. 8 ( citing
Cooper ,r 34). Appellants argue Cooper is deficient because masking is
performed by user programming rather than by the Cooper's system, and
because the pixels being masked are those where motion is unlikely to occur
rather than in response to a determination of a repeating movement, i.e.,
where motion does occur. App. Br. 18-19. The Examiner responds, finding
Cooper's setting of a high threshold results in ignoring repeating
movements, thereby teaching the disputed limitation. Ans. 9 ( citing Cooper
,r,r 22-24). Appellants reply, arguing setting a higher threshold will still
allow movement to trigger Cooper's system. Reply Br. 5. According to
Appellants "[i]n stark contrast, dependent claim 4 recites ignoring the data,
such that no amount of movement will trigger the system." Id.
Appellants' contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error. Cooper at
paragraph 34 discloses "a subset of the pixels in array 200 are 'masked out',
or programmed to be inactive." Cooper further discloses "[i]n another
embodiment, the outputs of all of the pixels in array 200 are digitized by ND
converter 206, and pixel data corresponding to areas that are not of interest
are not processed, or are ignored, by digital signal processor 104." One
skilled in the art would have understood that information from pixels which
is unwanted, such as information that might provide a false indication of
movement, could be addressed by increasing a threshold, masking, or simply
ignoring (not processing) information from those pixels, thereby teaching or
suggesting the disputed limitation. We are not persuaded that Cooper's
11
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
teaching of ignoring pixels where motion is unlikely renders the technique
inapplicable or teaches away from ignoring pixels likely to provide
erroneous information based on repetitious movement. Furthermore, we
also agree with the Examiner that Cooper's disclosure of setting a high
threshold to avoid spurious generation of a motion flag also teaches or
suggests ignoring a portion of captured image data that corresponds to that
region of repeated movement. We are also unpersuaded a disclosure of
masking performed involving user input (i.e., masking performed by a user)
fails to teach or suggest masking performed by the vision system of claim 4.
See Venner, 262 F.2d at 95 (holding that automating a manual activity is
insufficient to distinguish over the prior art.). According, we sustain the
rejection of claim 4.
Claim 5
"The vehicle vision system of claim 1, wherein said vision
system, responsive to determination of a threshold level of
repeating movement occurring at a portion of captured image
data, increases the threshold degree of change to suppress
increasing the capture rate to a second capture rate. "
Appellants' arguments in connection with claim 5 are repetitive of
those presented in connection with claim 4 and are similarly unpersuasive
for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 5.
Claim 14
Appellants' arguments in connection with independent claim 14 are
repetitive of those presented in connection with claim 1 and are unpersuasive
for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
12
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
claim 14 together with the rejections of dependent claims 15-18, which are
not argued separately with particularity.
Claim 6
"The vehicle vision system of claim 1, wherein said vision
system, responsive to a determination of a pedestrian in the
field of view of said at least one camera, generates a signal to
other vehicles indicative of the determined pedestrian. "
The Examiner finds Erhardt discloses that prior art imaging systems
included pedestrian detection capabilities (Final Act. 14; Ans. 11 ( citing
Erhardt ,r 7)), with Erhardt at paragraph 65 further disclosing "[d]etection of
an exception event in the security monitoring mode, such as the activation of
a car alarm, cause[ing] all digital camera imaging systems to begin capturing
continuous video clips." The Examiner applies Zeng's vehicle-to-vehicle
communication system for teaching generating a signal to other vehicles, the
combination of Erhardt, Velarde, Cooper, and Zeng teaching or suggesting
the subject matter of claim 6. Final Act. 14; Ans. 11-12.
Appellants contend the rejection is improper, arguing Erhardt' s
pedestrian detection is not disclosed to be an exception event. Reply Br. 6.
According to Appellants, Erhardt' s exception events "are detected when in
the system is placed into 'security monitoring mode' which occurs when the
user activates the system when the vehicle is in park." Id. Appellants argue
Erhardt's disclosure of pedestrian detection is related to driving operations
and collision avoidance. Id. According to Appellants, Erhardt's list of
exception events "aligns with dangers the vehicle suffers from while in
park" and would not include "pedestrian detection." Id.
13
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
Appellants' contention is unpersuasive. Although Appellants argue
Erhardt's exception events are dangers the vehicle might encounter while
parked, the examples listed by Appellants include events that might occur
when a vehicle was either parked or being driven, including "'accidents or
impending accidents, general unauthorized use, theft, and hijacking."' Id.
( citing Erhardt ,r 52). Thus, whether detecting a pedestrian to avoid a
collision or to detect a possible theft or vandalism of a parked vehicle, we
are not persuaded Erhardt' s exception events exclude pedestrian detection as
argued by Appellants. Nor are we persuaded the Examiner errs in
determining one of ordinary skill would have been taught to use Erhardt' s
pedestrian detection to generate a signal as taught by Erhardt' s exception
event signaling. See Ans. 11.
We are also unpersuaded the combination of Erhardt and Zeng is
improper. See App. Br. 22. Contrary to Appellants, we find the Examiner
has provided reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. Final Act. 15. Appellants' contention that
"[c]ombining [Zeng's] ... realtime object detection with the recording of
Erhardt would change the principle of operation of Erhardt" is also
unpersuasive of Examiner error for failure to explain what principle of
operation necessarily would be changed. Ans. 12. Such argument is further
unpersuasive because it relies on wholesale incorporation/combination of
structures rather than what the combination of Erhardt and Zeng fairly
teaches or suggests.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
14
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). The artisan is not compelled
to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other
without the exercise of independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v.
Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Furthermore, the
skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together
like pieces of a puzzle" because the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. Here, Appellants
have not demonstrated the Examiner's proffered combination in support of
the conclusion of obviousness would have been "uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at
420).
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants' contentions are
unpersuasive, and we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 6.
Claim 7
"The vehicle vision system of claim 1, wherein said vision
system, responsive to a signal received from another vehicle
that is indicative of a determination of a pedestrian at the other
vehicle who is moving towards the path of travel of the
equipped vehicle, generates an alert to the driver of the
equipped vehicle. "
The Examiner finds warnings generated by Zeng' s vision detection
system provide "visibility enhancement of pedestrians" (Zeng ,r 16), and
Zeng' s transmission of alert warnings by a remote vehicle to an equipped
15
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
vehicle (id. ,r 29) teach or suggest generating an alert to the driver of the
equipped vehicle in response to determination of a pedestrian at the remote
(i.e., other) vehicle. Final Act. 15. Appellants contend paragraph 29 of Zeng
neither mentions pedestrian information nor an alert to the driver of the
equipped vehicle. App. Br. 23. The Examiner responds, taking the position
that Appellants are arguing the references individually rather than based on
their combination, i.e., Zeng alone rather than in combination with Erhardt.
Ans. 12-13. The Examiner explains:
Erhardt discloses, in [0007], that vehicle imaging system 200 of
Fig. 2 performs, among other things, pedestrian detection.
Zeng discloses, in [0016], that the alert warnings include
visibility enhancement of pedestrians/cyclists and Vehicle-to-
vehicle (V2V) wireless messages are communicated between
vehicles to forewarn other drivers of vehicles. In [0020], Zeng
further discloses that the host vehicle 10 is equipped with V2V
communication system and object detection sensing devices.
Finally, in [0029], Zeng discloses data is collected from a V2V
communication message include alert warnings. Therefore, the
combination of Erhardt and Zeng discloses [the disputed
limitations of claim 7].
Id. at 13. Appellants reply, arguing "the Examiner again merely relies on
paragraph [0029] of Zeng to disclose 'alert warnings.' Appellant[s]
respectfully reiterate[] that the Examiner has failed to show that any of the
cited art (alone or in combination) discloses generating an alert to the driver
of the equipped vehicle, as claimed." Reply Br. 7.
Appellants' contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error. The
Examiner has presented evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the
combination of Erhardt and Zeng teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations of dependent claim 7. In contrast, Appellants fail to explain why,
16
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
under a broad but reasonable interpretation, Zeng's communication message
including alert warnings sent to and received by the host (i.e., equipped)
vehicle fails to teach or suggest generating an alert to the driver of the
equipped vehicle. We note that prior art references are to be "'considered
together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art."' In
re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). In that
regard, "it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the
reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826
(CCPA 1968). In the present case, providing an alert warning to the
equipped vehicle teaches or at least suggests generating an alert to the driver
of that vehicle. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 8
"The vehicle vision system of claim 1, wherein said vision
system, responsive to determination of an interruption in a
signal communicated to said vision system from a remote
transmitter, at least temporarily disables an access system of
the equipped vehicle. "
The Examiner finds Erhardt' s remote disabling of a stolen vehicle in
combination with Dabholkar's event detection triggered by a loss of vehicle
reports due to, for example, jamming, teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. Final Act. 16-18 ( citing Erhardt ,r,r 59---60; Dabholkar, Fig. 4
(steps 408 and 414), Fig. 3). Appellants contend Dabholkar is deficient
because, rather than disabling an access systems of the equipped vehicle, the
reference merely discloses notifying authorities. App. Br. 24. The Examiner
responds, explaining that Erhardt discloses disabling a vehicle in response to
17
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
a security event such that, in combination with Dabholkar detection of a
signal interruption, the prior art renders the disputed limitation obvious.
Ans. 14. Appellants reply, arguing Erhardt discloses a monitoring service or
law enforcement, not the vehicle vision system, makes a decision to
remotely disable a vehicle. Reply Br. 7-8. According to Appellants:
The difference between a law enforcement service, which upon
receiving a notification and at their leisure, views transmitted
images and then determines if the vehicle is disabled, and a
vehicle-based vision system, which determines that a signal has
been interrupted and therefore disables an access system of the
vehicle, is readily apparent.
Id. at 8.
Appellants' contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error. Claim 8
does not exclude intervening steps such as review of an event by a
monitoring service or law enforcement prior to initiating disabling of a
vehicle. Furthermore, in addition to the specific method of disabling a
vehicle disclosed by Erhardt, which includes participation of a monitoring
service or law enforcement in disabling a vehicle, Erhardt also teaches the
general concept of disabling a vehicle in response to a security event not
limited to the disclosed implementation. Thus, Appellants' argument is
additionally unpersuasive because it improperly relies on wholesale
incorporation/combination of structures rather than what the combination of
Erhardt and Dabholkar fairly teaches and suggests. See supra discussion in
connection with claim 6 citing Keller, Lear Siegler, and KSR. Still further,
to the extent the prior art discloses manual processing in the performance of
the disputed limitation, we again note that broadly providing an automatic
process to replace a manual activity accomplishing the same result typically
is not sufficient to distinguish an automated process over the prior art. See
18
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
Venner, 262 F.2d at 95. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent
claim 8 together with the rejection of dependent claim 9, which is not argued
separately with particularity.
Claim 10
"The vehicle vision system of claim 9, wherein said person is
alerted via a hand held device. "
The Examiner finds Erhardt' s system discloses "responsive to
determination of the interruption of the signal communicated to said vision
system, a person situated remote from the equipped vehicle is alerted" as
required by claim 9 from which claim 10 depends. Final Act. 1 7. The
Examiner further finds the instrumentality for providing the remote alert,
i.e., the hand held device of claim 10, is taught by Erhardt's disclosure of
using a cellular phone to remotely activate or deactivate Erhardt's security
monitoring system. Id. ( citing Erhardt, Fig. 2 (phone 290), ,r 64).
Appellants contend Erhardt only discloses allowing a person to trigger or
initiate an event, not alerting a person. App. Br. 25. The Examiner
responds, finding Erhardt's disclosure of "[o]ther methods of
detection/trigger of theft or hijacking are use of a cellular phone 290" in
combination with Dabholkar teaches alerting a person via a hand held
device. Ans. 15 ( citing Erhardt ,r 62). Appellants reply, emphasizing
"Erhardt discloses using a mobile phone to inform the system of a hijacking
event, while dependent claim 10 claims just the opposite, where the system
uses the phone to inform the user of the event." Reply Br. 8.
To find Appellants' argument persuasive, we would have to accept the
premise that, at the time of the invention, one skilled in the art would not
19
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
have found it obvious that Erhardt' s cellular phone, although disclosed as
capable of providing an alert triggering event, could also receive an alert.
We instead agree with the Examiner that Erhardt's disclosure of a cellular
phone interfacing with Erhardt' s security monitoring system, together with
Erhardt's disclosure of alerting a person situated remote from the equipped
vehicle of a signal interruption, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of
claim 10, and, accordingly, we sustain the rejection of that claim.
Claim 19
19. A vision system for a vehicle, said vehicle vision system
comprising:
[(l 9a)] a plurality of cameras disposed at a vehicle
equipped with said vehicle vision system, wherein said cameras
having respective fields of view exterior the equipped vehicle
and is operable to capture image data;
[(19b)J an image processor operable to process image
data captured by said cameras;
[(19c)] wherein said plurality of cameras and said image
processor comprise at least a part of a surround view system of
the equipped vehicle;
[(19d)J wherein said vision system is operable to record
images captured by said cameras;
[(19e)] wherein said vision system controls operation of
said cameras;
[(191)] wherein said vision system, responsive to a
determination that the equipped vehicle is in a parked state,
controls said cameras to capture respective frames of image
data at a first capture rate, and wherein said vision system does
not record images captured by said cameras at the first capture
rate;
[(19g)] wherein, responsive to image processing by said
image processor of image data captured by said cameras, said
vision system compares a frame of image data captured by an
individual camera to at least one previous frame of image data
captured by that individual camera;
20
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
[(19h)J wherein, responsive to said comparison
determining a change in the frames of image data captured by
an individual camera beyond a threshold degree of change
when said cameras are not capturing frames of image data at
said first capture rate and when said vision system is not
recording captured images, (i) said vision system increases the
capture rate to a second capture rate for at least that individual
camera, (ii) at least that individual camera captures frames of
image data at said second capture rate and (iii) said vision
system starts recording images captured at said second capture
rate by at least that individual camera; and
[(19i)J wherein said vision system, responsive to
determination of a threshold level of repeating activity at ...
least a portion of captured image data of at least one of said
cameras, increases the threshold degree of change.
Independent claim 19 recites subject matter similar to that recited by
independent claim 1, requiring a plurality of cameras instead of the single
camera of claim 1 (limitation (19a)), the subsequent limitations applicable to
an individual or one of the plurality of cameras. App. Br. 26. Claim 19
additionally adds the requirement for the plurality of cameras and image
processor comprise at least a part of a surround view system of the equipped
vehicle (limitation (19c) ). Id.
In rejecting claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner applies the
Erhardt and Velarde references substantially as applied in rejecting claim 1.
However, rather than relying on Cooper, the Examiner relies on Pawlicki
and Holz for teaching or suggesting the limitation ( 19i) of wherein said
vision system, responsive to determination of an event based on at least a
portion of captured image data, increases the threshold degree of change
(Final Act. 21 (citing Pawlicki ,r,r 14, 59)), and that the determined event is a
threshold level of repeating activity (id. (citing Holz ,r,r 23, 24)).
21
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
Claim 19: Arguments 1 (a) and 1 (b)
Limitations (191) and Limitation (19h)
Appellants' arguments in connection with limitations (19f) and (19h)
are repetitious of those made in connection with claim 1 which arguments
we find unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Claim 19: Argument 2
Limitation (l 9i): "wherein said vision system, responsive to determination
of a threshold level of repeating activity at ... a portionl5l of captured image
data of at least one of said cameras, increases the threshold degree of
change"
The Examiner finds threshold changes made by control 16 of
Pawlicki' s lane change assist system 10 in response to various factors, such
as driving conditions and distance to a detected object, teaches or suggests
increasing the threshold degree of change responsive to determination of an
event at a portion of a captured image data. Final Act. 21 ( citing Pawlicki
,r 59). The Examiner further finds Holz's disclosure of determining suitable
image-processing settings "by having a person repeatedly walk into and out
of the region of interest" teaches or suggests that the determined event is a
threshold level of repeating activity (id. (citing Holz ,r,r 23, 24)). Appellants
argue "Holz makes no disclosure or suggestion that the control or system
makes a determination of a threshold level of repeating activity, as claimed."
App. Br. 27. According to Appellants,
5 The disputed limitation ( 19i) recites, in relevant part, "responsive to
determination of a threshold level of repeating activity at at least a portion of
captured image data ... " Because, under open-ended claim interpretation,
the phrase "at least" is not further limiting and the repetitive use of the word
"at" may lead to confusion, for purposes of our analysis we omit recitation
of the phrase "at least" in our discussion of the limitation.
22
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
Id.
Holz discloses a system whereby the user may calibrate the
settings, and the control merely determines when the threshold
settings have been met. Not only does the system in Holz fail
to disclose increasing the threshold of change in response to a
determination of a threshold level of repeating activity, there is
no disclosure that the system in Holz can alter the threshold of
change whatsoever, instead leaving such tasks to the user.
The Examiner responds, concluding the argued claim language does
not exclude user determination of the threshold such that Holz's disclosure
of empirically determining a threshold by having a person repeatedly
walking into and out of the region of interest teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation. Ans. 16.
Appellants' contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error. We agree
with the Examiner that claim 19 does not exclude user determination of a
threshold level. Furthermore, Holz's description of setting a threshold, even
if disclosed as performed by a user, does not limit the teaching to the
particular implementation disclosed. That is, Holz's disclosure of setting,
altering, and increasing a threshold in combination with Erhardt's
automotive imaging system, cameras and image processor; Velarde' s video
recording apparatus; and Pawlicki's object detection system, teaches or
suggests apparatus performing the threshold taught by Holz. See Venner,
262 F.2d at 95 ( obvious to automate a manual operation).
Claim 19: Argument 3
Motivation for combining Erhardt and Holz
Appellants argue, because Holz is directed to a motion capture system
used to track complex objects, it is so dissimilar to the automotive imaging
23
Appeal2018-005407
Application 14/169,329
system of Erhardt such that the asserted combination of those references is
improper. App. Br. 28-29. This argument is unpersuasive for essentially the
same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1. Contrary to
Appellants, we find the Examiner has provided reasoning with rational
underpinnings sufficient to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Final Act. 21; Ans. 17-18.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants' contentions in
connection with the rejection of independent claim 19 are unpersuasive of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 19 together
with the rejection of dependent claim 20, which is not argued separately with
particularity.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
24