MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 3, 2021

2020000024 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2021)

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