MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 3, 2020

14898493 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2020)

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. 14/898,493 12/15/2015 Manfred Fürsich MAG04-P2334-423736 9735 153508 7590 08/03/2020 HONIGMAN LLP/MAGNA 650 TRADE CENTRE WAY SUITE 200 KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402 EXAMINER LOTFI, KYLE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2425 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/03/2020 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 MANFRED FÜRSICH and THOMAS WIERICH ____________________ Appeal 2019-003088 Application 14/898,493 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JOHN A. EVANS, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 4–6, and 8–24, which are all of the claims pending in the application. Claims 2, 3, and 7 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Magna Electronics Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-003088 Application 14/898,493 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s Invention Appellant generally describes the disclosed and claimed invention as relating to “a vehicle vision system that utilizes one or more cameras at a vehicle.” Spec. ¶ 2. Figure 1 is reproduced below. Figure 1 depicts vehicle 10 including imaging or vision system 20. Id. ¶ 65. The system includes camera 1 instead of the driver side rearview mirror, and camera 2 instead of the passenger side rearview mirror. Id. Cameras 1 and 2 each include a lens that has a center axis and is configured to focus light at a two dimensional imaging array sensor including a plurality of photosensor elements arranged in rows and columns. Id. ¶ 114. The lens may be disposed at the imaging array sensor with the center axis of the lens laterally offset from the center region of the imaging array sensor (preferably towards the inboard region of the imaging array sensor and the side of the Appeal 2019-003088 Application 14/898,493 3 vehicle). Id. Images captured by cameras 1 and 2 may be processed by a control or electronic control unit or processor and displayed on one or more video display monitors 5 and 6 for viewing by the driver of the vehicle. Id. ¶¶ 65, 66. The images captured by cameras 1 and 2 may be stitched together to create one seamless rearview image. Id. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and provides as follows: 1. A vision system of a vehicle, said vision system comprising: a camera disposed at a side of a body of a vehicle equipped with said vision system and having a field of view exterior of the equipped vehicle and at least rearward of the equipped vehicle; wherein said camera captures image data; wherein said camera comprises a lens and a two dimensional imaging array sensor having a plurality of photosensing elements arranged in an array of rows and columns; wherein said array of said imaging array sensor has a center region; wherein said lens is configured to focus light at said imaging array sensor, and wherein said lens comprises a wide angle lens having a center axis and a peripheral region around the center axis; wherein image data captured by said imaging array sensor that is associated with light focused at said imaging array sensor that has passed through said center axis of said lens has less distortion than image data captured by said imaging array sensor that is associated with light focused at said imaging array sensor that has passed through said peripheral region of said lens; wherein said lens is disposed at said imaging array sensor with said center axis of said lens laterally offset from said center region of said array of said imaging array sensor; Appeal 2019-003088 Application 14/898,493 4 wherein, with said camera disposed at the side of the body of the equipped vehicle, said center axis of said lens is laterally offset from said center region of said array of said imaging array sensor towards an inboard side of said array of said imaging array sensor that is laterally closer to the side of the body of the equipped vehicle than said center region of said array of said imaging array sensor; a video display disposed in the equipped vehicle and viewable by a driver of the equipped vehicle when the driver is normally operating the equipped vehicle, wherein said video display is operable to display video images derived from image data captured by said camera; and wherein the displayed video images have less distortion at displayed image portions representative of an area closer to the side of the body of the vehicle and greater distortion at displayed image portions representative of an area further laterally outboard from the side of the body of the vehicle. Appeal Br. 44–45 (Claims App.). References The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Schofield et al. (Schofield) US 5,670,935 Sept. 23, 1997 Bauer et al. (Bauer) US 6,509,832 B1 Jan. 21, 2003 Grabowski et al. (Grabowski) US 2009/0005961 A1 Jan. 1, 2009 Sutton et al. (Sutton) US 2012/0242882 A1 Sept. 27, 2012 Barnidge et al. (Barnidge) US 8,411,235 B1 Apr. 2, 2013 Sun US 8,462,209 B2 June 11, 2013 Yamamoto et al. (Yamamoto) US 2014/0063197 A1 Mar. 6, 2014 Kweon US 8,798,451 B1 Aug. 5, 2014 Appeal 2019-003088 Application 14/898,493 5 Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 16–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schofield, Sun, and Yamamoto. Final Act. 5–13. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schofield, Sun, Yamamoto, and Bauer. Id. at 13–14. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schofield, Sun, Yamamoto, and Kweon. Id. at 14. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schofield, Sun, Yamamoto, and Sutton. Id. at 15. Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schofield, Sun, Yamamoto, and Barnidge. Id. at 15–16. Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schofield, Sun, Yamamoto, and Grabowski. Id. at 16–18. ANALYSIS Claims 2, 3, and 7 In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable over Schofield, Sun, and Yamamoto. See Final Act. 8–10. Appellant, however, had previously canceled these claims. See Response to Final Office Action 2, 7 (filed December 14, 2017). Accordingly, the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 7 under this ground is moot. Claims 1, 4–6, and 8–24 In rejecting claim 1’s “vision system of a vehicle” under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness over Schofield, Sun, and Yamamoto, the Examiner relies on Schofield’s rearview vision system for teaching most of the claim Appeal 2019-003088 Application 14/898,493 6 limitations. Final Act. 5–6 (citing Schofield, Abstract, 1:14–16, 2:5–9, 3:49–56, 4:1–4, 9:36–43, Fig. 1). The Examiner acknowledges, however, that Schofield does not explicitly disclose wherein said lens is disposed at said imaging array sensor with said center axis of said lens laterally offset from said center region of said array of said imaging array sensor; [and] wherein, with said camera disposed at the side of the body of the equipped vehicle, said center axis of said lens is laterally offset from said center region of said array of said imaging array sensor towards an inboard side of said array of said imaging array sensor that is laterally closer to the side of the body of the equipped vehicle than said center region of said array of said imaging array sensor. Id. at 6–7. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds “these limitations are disclosed in an analogous art by Sun,” in which Figure 6B shows a second lens 38 laterally displaced a distance 39 from a first lens 36 and image sensor, and Figure 1 shows lenses 16 and 18 laterally offset from the center regions of their respective CCD imager elements 11 and 13. Id. at 6–7 (citing Sun 2:13–18, 2:59–66, Figs. 1, 3, 6B). The Examiner reasons that [i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's effective filing date to modify the rearview camera system disclosed in Schofield by incorporating the off-axis lens systems disclosed in Sun, for the purpose of obtaining a pair of left and right images of a region exterior to a vehicle that are optimized for panoramic synthesis. Id. at 7 (citing Sun 2:13–18, 2:59–66). The dispositive issue raised by Appellant’s briefs is whether the Examiner articulated an adequate rationale to combine the cited teachings of Schofield with those of Sun. See Appeal Br. 26–29; Reply Br. 4–6. Appellant argues, in relevant part, that “the combination of Sun with Schofield would not result in any benefit to the system (12) of Schofield” Appeal 2019-003088 Application 14/898,493 7 because “the system of Schofield is already configured to provide a seamless composite image (42) using left, right, and center images (44, 46, 48),” and “there would have been absolutely no reason to further modify the system of Schofield in view of Sun ‘to contribute to seamless panoramic image synthesis,’ as alleged in the Office Action.” Appeal Br. 27. In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner submits that incorporating the lens shift mounts disclosed in Sun into the side image capture devices 14 confers the further advantage of increasing the overlap between the left and right image regions 22, and the center image region 26 of figure 1, “which can be more easily processed by simplified photogrammetric algorithms to provide a ranger finder [distance calculation]” for the area represented in the stitched panoramic image. Ans. 7 (citing Sun 2:33–39). The Examiner explains that [w]hile[] Schofield discloses techniques for mitigating [] distortion, the teaching of Sun of providing a lens shift mount that shifts the lenses inboard to create an overlap region[] would, if applied to Schofield, reduce the amount of distortion in the overlap regions used for image stitching by imaging these regions using more of the center of the lens, per Sun, thereby enhancing the image synthesis. Id. at 8. Appellant responds in the Reply Brief that “shifting the lenses of the side image capture devices (14) in the manner proposed by the Examiner would have no effect on the amount of overlap” and, thus, would not provide any purported advantage, because “the inward boundaries of the left and right image regions (22) of Schofield are not limited by the positions of the lens, but are instead defined by the sides of the vehicle (10).” Reply Br. 5. Appeal 2019-003088 Application 14/898,493 8 We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We begin our analysis with a brief overview of the Schofield and Sun disclosures. Schofield describes a rearview vision system for a vehicle including rearward-facing image capture devices for producing a composite image that approximates a seamless panoramic rearward-facing view from the vehicle. See, e.g., Schofield 2:22–29, 4:6–8. Figure 1 of Schofield is reproduced below. Figure 1 depicts a top plan view of a vehicle with a rearview vision system according to the preferred embodiment of Schofield. Id. at 3:20–21. Vehicle 10, such as an automobile, may include rearview vision system 12 for providing a driver of vehicle 10 a rearward view opposite the direction of travel D. Id. at 3:49–56. Rearview vision system 12 may include two side image capture devices 14 on opposite sides of vehicle 10 and a center image capture device 16 on the lateral centerline of vehicle 10. Id. at 3:56–59. Appeal 2019-003088 Application 14/898,493 9 Each image capture device may be directed generally rearwardly of vehicle 10. Id. at 3:59–61. Image processor 18 may receive data signals from image capture devices 14 and 16 and synthesize therefrom a composite image 42 for display on image display device 20. Id. at 3:61–65. Images captured by image capture devices 14 and 16 may be juxtaposed on image display device 20 by image processor 18 to approximate a view from a single virtual image capture device in front of vehicle 12 (at location C) and facing rearwardly of vehicle 12. Id. at 3:66–4:4. Rearward vision system 12 therefore may provide a substantially seamless panoramic view rearwardly of the vehicle without duplicate or redundant images of objects. Id. at 4:6–8. Figure 3 of Schofield is reproduced below. Figure 3 depicts an exemplary image display device 20 that is displaying composite image 42, which is a seamless panoramic view Appeal 2019-003088 Application 14/898,493 10 rearwardly of vehicle 10 made up of left image portion 44, right image portion 46, and center image portion 48. Id. at 5:48–50, 5:59–62. Left image portion 44 is joined with central image portion 48 at boundary 50, and right image portion is joined with central image portion 48 at boundary 52. Id. at 5:56–59. As may be seen in Figure 3, central image portion 48 is narrower than left image portion 46 and right image portion 48. Id. at 5:62– 64. This is because horizontal field of view 26 of center image capture device 16 (see id., Fig. 1) has been reduced to move points P and overlap zones 32 and 34 a sufficient distance behind vehicle 10 to reduce redundant and duplicative images between image portions 44–48. Id. at 5:64–6:2. Sun describes a dual-swath electro-optical (EO) imaging system for aerial vehicles “to acquire large-format, wide-swathwidth color imagery with centimeter-level resolution.” Sun 1:6–11. Figure 1 of Sun is reproduced below. Figure 1 depicts a block diagram of a dual-swath EO aerial imaging system 10 according to an illustrative embodiment of Sun. Id. at 4:66–5:1. Imaging system 10 may include two cameras 12, 14 mounted adjacent to one another with identical parallel mounted nadir pointing optical lenses 16, 18 Appeal 2019-003088 Application 14/898,493 11 and identical CCD imagers 11, 13 mounted on camera bodies 17, 19. Id. at 5:1–3, 7:34–37. Camera bodies 17, 19 may be attached to optical lenses 16, 18 with a pair of mechanical lens shift mounts 34-1 and 34-2 mounted between camera 12, elements 16 and 17, and camera 14, elements 18 and 19, such that the lens optical axes are symmetrically shifted to the left and right a predetermined distance to take left and right images simultaneously. Id. at 5:4–11; Figs. 2A, C. The simultaneously captured dual images may form a panorama with a narrow strip of overlapping field at its center. Id. at 6:63– 66. The perspective difference within this overlap strip of the left and right images may be generally ignored, resulting in natively well-registered left and right images that may be seamlessly stitched together by software methods. Id. at 7:41–46, Fig. 2B. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not articulated an adequate rationale to combine the cited teachings of Schofield with those of Sun. As an initial matter, because Schofield already provides a seamless composite image, it is unclear why one of ordinary skill in the art would include Sun’s techniques for seamlessly stitching adjacent images that have a narrow overlap together. See, e.g., Schofield 4:6–8, 5:59–63. The Examiner reasons that the proposed combination would yield a narrow strip of overlapped images “optimized for panoramic synthesis” and “‘more easily processed by simplified photogrammetric algorithms to provide a ranger finder [distance calculation]’ for the area represented in the stitched panoramic image.” See Ans. 7 (citing Sun 2:33–39). However, we are not convinced that the cited techniques of Sun would offer such benefits to Schofield’s system. Indeed, modifying Schofield to include the inboard lens-shifting technique of Sun would not increase the overlap between Appeal 2019-003088 Application 14/898,493 12 images, as the Examiner suggests, because the field of view 22 of each image capture device 14 in Schofield is defined not by the position of the lens, but by the left or right side of the vehicle. See Reply Br. 5; Schofield Fig. 1. Rather, as Appellant explains, the proposed combination would not appear to have any effect on any existing space or overlap between left or right image 44, 46 and center image 48. In addition, Sun describes its simplified photographic algorithms as relying on the width of the narrow strip of overlapping field being proportional to the above ground level height of the imaging system. See, e.g., Sun 3:63–64, 9:47–57, 10:1–9. But it is unclear how such algorithms could be implemented in Schofield’s system, where the height of the vision system preferably remains constant. See, e.g., Schofield 7:19–22. The Examiner therefore has not provided “‘some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Nor has the Examiner provided any additional finding or reasoning that cures the above deficiencies. We decline to resort to speculation to fill in the gaps in the Examiner’s rejection. See Ex parte Braeken, 54 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (BPAI 1999). Therefore, constrained by this record, we determine the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness over Schofield, Sun, and Yamamoto. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of dependent claims 4–6 and 8–24, for which the Examiner fails to provide any finding or reasoning that Appeal 2019-003088 Application 14/898,493 13 cures the above deficiencies. See Final Act. 9–18; cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious”). CONCLUSION We do not reach the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the rejection is moot. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 16– 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schofield, Sun, and Yamamoto. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schofield, Sun, Yamamoto, and Bauer. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schofield, Sun, Yamamoto, and Kweon. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schofield, Sun, Yamamoto, and Sutton. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schofield, Sun, Yamamoto, and Barnidge. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schofield, Sun, Yamamoto, and Grabowski. Appeal 2019-003088 Application 14/898,493 14 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 2, 3, 7 103 Schofield, Sun, Yamamoto2 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 16–24 103 Schofield, Sun, Yamamoto 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 16–24 6 103 Schofield, Sun, Yamamoto, Bauer 6 8 103 Schofield, Sun, Yamamoto, Kweon 8 9 103 Schofield, Sun, Yamamoto, Sutton 9 12, 13 103 Schofield, Sun, Yamamoto, Barnidge 12, 13 14, 15 103 Schofield, Sun, Yamamoto, Grabowski 14, 15 Overall Outcome 1, 4–6, 8– 24 REVERSED 2 As explained above, we do not reach this rejection because Appellant had previously canceled these claims.