MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 3, 20212020000024 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/379,800 12/15/2016 Marc-Andr¿ Sigle MAG04-P2909/423911 4319 153508 7590 09/03/2021 HONIGMAN LLP/MAGNA 650 TRADE CENTRE WAY SUITE 200 KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402 EXAMINER HASAN, MAINUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/03/2021 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): asytsma@honigman.com patent@honigman.com tflory@honigman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARC-ANDRE SIGLE Appeal 2020-000024 Application 15/379,800 Technology Center 2400 Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Magna Electronics Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed April 29, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) at 2. Appeal 2020-000024 Application 15/379,800 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Summary Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to: [A] driver assistance system or vision system or imaging system for a vehicle that utilizes one or more cameras (preferably one or more CMOS cameras) to capture image data representative of images exterior of the vehicle, and provides power to the camera or cameras via an Ethernet, LVDS or any other discrete or analog connection line (referred to herein as a connection line or image data transmission line), with the transmission line having a noise filter that filters noise from the signal or signals (such as a power signal) carried or communicated or transmitted by the transmission line. Spec. ¶ 4.2 Exemplary Claims Claims 1, 11, and 16 are independent. Claims 1 and 6, reproduced below with certain dispositive limitations at issue italicized, exemplify the claimed subject matter: 1. A vision system of a vehicle, said vision system comprising: a camera disposed at a vehicle and having a field of view interior or exterior of the vehicle, wherein the camera is operable to capture image data; an electronic control unit (ECU) disposed at the vehicle remote from said camera, wherein said ECU comprises an 2 In addition to the above-noted Appeal Brief, throughout this Decision we refer to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed December 15, 2016 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed November 29, 2018; (3) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed August 1, 2019; and (4) the Reply Brief filed September 30, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-000024 Application 15/379,800 3 image processor operable to process image data captured by said camera; wherein said camera is connected to said ECU via an image data transmission line, and wherein said image data transmission line comprises a power-over-coaxial cable or a power-over-Ethernet cable; wherein said image data transmission line (i) transmits image data captured by said camera from said camera to said ECU for processing by said image processor and (ii) delivers electrical power from said ECU to said camera for powering said camera; and wherein said image data transmission line comprises a filter that filters electrical noise arising from electrical power delivered by said image data transmission line to said camera. 6. The vision system of claim 1, wherein said image data transmission line comprises a power-over-coaxial cable. Appeal Br. 26–27 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1–6, 8–12, and 14–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Camilleri et al. (US 2006/0125919 A1, published June 15, 2006) (“Camilleri”) and Dayan et al. (US 2013/0033599 A1, published Feb. 7, 2013) (“Dayan”). Final Act. 4–21. The Examiner rejects claims 7, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Camilleri, Dayan, and Diab et al. (US 2009/0152943 A1, published June 18, 2009) (“Diab”). Id. at 21–23. Appeal 2020-000024 Application 15/379,800 4 The Examiner rejects claims 6, 7, 12, 13, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Id. at 2–3. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Obviousness Rejection of Claim 1 over Camilleri and Dayan The Examiner finds that Camilleri teaches most of the limitations of independent claim 1, but finds that “it does not explicitly teach a filtering circuit for filtering electrical noise arising out of the power signals,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5. The Examiner also finds that Camilleri “does not explicitly teach that the communication link is a power over coaxial or power over Ethernet cable,” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 6. The Examiner relies on Dayan to teach these limitations. Id. at 5–6 (citing Dayan ¶¶ 118, 120, 155, Figs. 8A, 8B, 9A, 24). The Examiner determines that sufficient motivation existed to combine the teachings of the references. Id. at 6–7 (citing Dayan ¶ 120). Claim 1 recites, “wherein said image data transmission line (i) transmits image data captured by said camera from said camera to said ECU for processing by said image processor and (ii) delivers electrical power from said ECU to said camera for powering said camera.” Appeal Br. 26. The Examiner relies on Camilleri to teach or suggest this limitation. Final Act. 5 (citing Camilleri Fig. 3, #20, Fig. 4). Appeal 2020-000024 Application 15/379,800 5 Appellant argues that Camilleri does not teach an image data transmission line transmitting image data and carrying electrical power because Camilleri shows 5 separate signals “(VIDEO+, VIDEO-, GROUND, POWER, and SHIELD),” and specifically states that “there are five connections or wires or leads or communication links 20 between the display system 14 and the imaging system 16.” Appeal Br. 13 (citing Camilleri ¶ 33). Camilleri relates to a rearward facing camera 16 and a display 14 for a vehicle. Camilleri ¶ 2. Figure 3 of Camilleri is reproduced below. Figure 3 of Camilleri shows camera 16 and display 14 connected by links 20. In particular, Camilleri explains that there are “five connections or wires or leads or communication links 20 between the display system 14 and the imaging system 16. The connections or links include a camera power connection 20a, a ground connection 20b, a video + connection 20c, a video return connection 20d and a shield 20e.” Camilleri ¶ 33. Appeal 2020-000024 Application 15/379,800 6 The Examiner interprets Camilleri’s links 20 “as a transmission link between the camera and the ECU where the link carries both image data and the power signal.” Ans. 8. Appellant responds that the “Examiner indicates that Camilleri discloses a transmission link, but that is not what is claimed,” because claim 1 recites a transmission line. Reply Br. 4. Moreover, according to Appellant, the Examiner’s interpretation of a transmission line is unreasonably broad: a communication link may include a plurality of transmission lines. A data transmission line, when given its plain and ordinary meaning is a single cable that carries electrical signals. Furthermore, both the specification and the drawings of the ’800 application support construing the term “transmission line” in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning. For example, Figures 2-4 all show a single line representing the transmission line to the camera. Furthermore, independent claim 1 indicates that the transmission line includes power-over-coaxial or a power-over-Ethernet cable, which both, using the plain and ordinary meaning, mean transmitting both data and power over the same conductor, which, by the Examiner’s own admission, Camilleri fails to disclose. Id. (underlining emphasis added). Because the rejection turns on whether the cited combination of Camilleri and Dayan teaches or suggests a “transmission line,” we interpret this term before we compare the claim to the combined teachings of the applied references. In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260, 1262 (CCPA 1974) (“Before considering the rejections . . ., we must first [determine the scope of] the claims . . . .”). During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation 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 Appeal 2020-000024 Application 15/379,800 7 Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not whether the specification proscribes or precludes some broad reading of the claim term adopted by the examiner.” In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Instead, a proper claim construction analysis endeavors to assign a meaning to a disputed claim term “that corresponds with . . . how the inventor describes his invention in the specification.” Id. at 1383. According to Appellant, the Specification indicates that the claimed transmission line is a single cable that transmits image data and carries electrical power over a single conductor to a camera. Reply 4. We agree, noting the Specification discloses that the “data or signal transmission line of the system of the present invention is at least capable of transmitting high definition image data captured by a vehicle camera. The image data transmission line is also operable to carry electrical power to the vehicle camera from a power source of the vehicle.” Spec. ¶ 17. Appellant further argues claim 1 recites the “image data transmission line comprises a power- over-coaxial cable or a power-over-Ethernet cable.” Reply Br. 4. We agree this language supports Appellant’s proposed interpretation that the claimed data transmission line transmits both image data and electrical power over a single conductor of a cable. Accordingly, we determine the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed transmission line to include multiple connections or wires or leads or communication links to be inconsistent with Appellant’s Specification, and with claim 1 itself, and we adopt Appellant’s interpretation that the claimed transmission line is a single conductor of a single cable that both transmits image data and carries electrical power. Appeal 2020-000024 Application 15/379,800 8 Now that we have interpreted a “transmission line” in view of the Specification, we consider Appellant’s arguments distinguishing the claim over the combined teachings of the applied references. In view of our interpretation, we find persuasive Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that Camilleri’s discussion of employing “five connections or wires or leads or communication links 20 between the display system 14 and the imaging system 16” to transmit data and carry electrical power teaches or suggests the claimed image data transmission line. Appeal Br. 13 (citing Camilleri ¶ 33, Fig. 3). We also find persuasive Appellant’s argument that Figure 4 of “Camilleri provides no indication that a transmission line carries both video signals and power and ground.” Appeal Br. 13 (citing Camilleri ¶ 34, Fig. 4). As Appellant points out, reference items 20c and 20d of Figure 4 merely describe a video link and ground link, but are silent about delivering electrical power over the same cable or transmission line. Accordingly, we agree that the Examiner has not shown that Camilleri teaches or suggests an image data transmission line that transmits image data and delivers electrical power as recited in claim 1. Although it is unclear whether the Examiner relies on Dayan to teach the limitation at issue, we agree that the Examiner does not sufficiently show that Dayan compensates for the noted deficiencies of Camilleri. See Final Act. 6 (citing Dayan ¶ 155, Figs. 23, 24). Appellant argues that “Dayan is merely disclosing that the video cable, which carries only video signals, may be a coaxial cable. There is [] no disclosure or suggestion in Dayan that the video cable also transmits power.” Appeal Br. 14–15. Appeal 2020-000024 Application 15/379,800 9 We find this argument persuasive, noting that the portions of Dayan cited by the Examiner describe “a power supply cable [that] ‘can be incorporated into the same heat shrink tubing 160C which surrounds the external antenna cable 150C and the video signal wire 877C.’” Ans. 9 (emphasis omitted) (citing Dayan ¶¶ 155, 157); see Dayan ¶ 157 (“If desired the power supply wires 140C can be incorporated into the same heat shrink tubing 160C which surrounds the external antenna cable 150C and the video signal wire 877C.”). Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown that Dayan teaches or suggests an image data transmission line that transmits image data and delivers electrical power, as recited in claim 1. Thus, given the current record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that the combination of Camilleri and Dayan teaches or suggests “wherein said image data transmission line (i) transmits image data captured by said camera from said camera to said ECU for processing by said image processor and (ii) delivers electrical power from said ECU to said camera for powering said camera,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 26. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. 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 seeking to distinguish claim 1 from the cited prior art. For the same reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of independent claims 11 and 16, which recite a limitation similar to that at issue in claim 1. Appeal Br. 28, 29. In addition, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–10, 12–15, and 17–20, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, 11, or 16. Appeal 2020-000024 Application 15/379,800 10 Rejection of Claim 6, 7, 12, 13, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) Claim 1 recites in part “wherein said image data transmission line comprises a power-over-coaxial cable or a power-over-Ethernet cable.” Appeal Br. 26. Claim 6, which depends directly from claim 1, recites “wherein said image data transmission line comprises a3 power-over-coaxial cable.” Id. at 27. The Examiner rejects claims 6, 7, 12, 13, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), “as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.” Final Act. 3. According to the Examiner: Since there is an “or” clause in claim 1 between a power-over- coaxial and a power-over-Ethernet cable, claim 6 fails to further narrow the limitation of claim 1, when claim 1 image data transmission line is interpreted as “a power-over-coaxial cable.” In other words that it shall not conceivably be infringed by anything which would not also infringe the basic claim. Id. Appellant argues the rejection is erroneous because “an image data transmission line that includes a power-over-Ethernet cable would infringe 3 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider ascertaining whether dependent claims 6, 7, 12, 13, 19, and 20 meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) to particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter. Using claim 6 as an example, both claim 6 and claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recite “a power-over-coaxial cable.” Accordingly, the Examiner should determine if it is clear whether claim 6’s “power-over-coaxial cable” refers back to the “power-over-coaxial cable” recited in claim 1 or whether claim 6 recites another “power-over-coaxial cable,” different than that recited in claim 1. Appeal 2020-000024 Application 15/379,800 11 the broader independent claim 1, but would not infringe the narrower dependent claim 6.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. A dependent claim must be “further limiting [of] another claim or claims in the same application” and “[c]laims in dependent form shall be construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim.” MPEP § 608.01(n) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 1.75). Accordingly, we construe claim 6 to include the alternative limitation recited in claim 1, i.e., “wherein said image data transmission line comprises a power-over-coaxial cable or a power- over-Ethernet cable.” Appeal Br. 26. Appellant’s additional language in claim 6, using the open-ended transitional phrase comprising, does not change our interpretation of the alternative limitation of claim 1, now incorporated by reference into claim 6. In other words, putting aside the potential indefiniteness issue brought up in footnote three above, claim 6 merely recites the same subject matter already recited in claim 1. We do not read claim 6 to recite said image data transmission line is only a power-over- coaxial cable and not a power-over-Ethernet cable because claim 6 uses the open ended term comprising. MPEP § 2111.03. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that “claim 6 fails to further narrow the limitation of claim 1” and that claim 6 “shall not conceivably be infringed by anything which would not also infringe the basic claim.” Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d). We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 12, 13, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) for similar reasons. Appeal 2020-000024 Application 15/379,800 12 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–6, 8–12, 14–19 103 Camilleri, Dayan 1–6, 8–12, 14–19 7, 13, 20 103 Camilleri, Dayan, Diab 7, 13, 20 6, 7, 12, 13, 19, 20 112(d) Improper Dependency 6, 7, 12, 13, 19, 20 Overall Outcome 6, 7, 12, 13, 19, 20 1–5, 8–11, 14–18 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation