Young Optics Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 6, 2021

2021001844 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 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.
16/601,424 10/14/2019 JYH-HORNG SHYU 3722/1113PUS2 7606
60601 7590 12/06/2021
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
EXAMINER
HAN, JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/06/2021 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):
MAILROOM@MG-IP.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JYH-HORNG SHYU
Appeal 2021-001844
Application 16/601,424
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Young Optics Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-001844
Application 16/601,424

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to vehicle lighting systems configured to
change the intensity profile of a light beam.
Independent claims 1 and 19, reproduced below, are illustrative of the
claimed subject matter. The dispositive limitations on appeal are italicized.
1. A vehicle lighting system, comprising:
a light processing unit capable of changing an intensity
profile of a light beam;
a non-uniform projection unit capable of converting the
light beam processed by the light processing unit into a light
beam having a non-uniform intensity profile;
a sensing unit for detecting surrounding conditions and
outputting at least one image signal in response to the detected
surrounding conditions;
a judgment unit for receiving the image signal from the
sensing unit to determine whether to change the intensity profile
of the light beam according to the image signal; and
an operation unit for receiving a judgment result of the
judgment unit, wherein the operation unit is configured to
calculate out a desired intensity profile and output a control
signal containing information about the desired intensity profile
to the light processing unit when the intensity profile needs to be
changed in accordance with the judgment result, and the light
processing unit is configured to change the intensity profile of
the light beam according to the control signal and send out the
light beam with the desired intensity profile.

19. A vehicle lighting system, comprising:
a camera, capable of outputting an image signal in
response to at least one detected object outside a vehicle;
a judgment unit, electronically coupled to the camera, the
judgment unit is capable of determining whether to change an
intensity profile of a light beam according to the image signal
and providing a judgment result;
an operation unit, electronically coupled to the judgment
unit, the operation unit being capable of receiving the judgment
Appeal 2021-001844
Application 16/601,424

3
result, obtaining a desired intensity profile by calculation, and
outputting a control signal;
a light valve electronically coupled to the operation unit
and being capable of sending out the light beam with the desired
intensity profile according to the control signal; and
a non-uniform projection unit capable of converting the
light beam processed by the light processing unit into a light
beam having a non-uniform intensity profile.

Appeal Br. 15, 17 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–9, 11, 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Okubo (US 6,969,183 B2, issued November
29, 2005). Final Act. 6–8. Claims 10, 12, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Okubo in view of additional prior art.
Id. at 9–12. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Masuda (US 9,435,503 B2, issued September 6, 2016) in
view of Natsume (US 6,575,610 B2, issued June 10, 2003). Id. at 12–13.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for reversible error based on the
arguments and evidence presented by Appellant. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had failed to make a prima
facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”).

Appeal 2021-001844
Application 16/601,424

4
Rejections based on Okubo
The Examiner finds that the vehicle lighting system of claim 1 is
anticipated by Okubo. Final Act. 6–7.
Appellant argues that Okubo does not anticipate because it fails to
disclose “an operation unit for receiving a judgment result of the judgment
unit, wherein the operation unit is configured to calculate out a desired
intensity profile and output a control signal containing information about the
desired intensity profile to the light processing unit.” Appeal Br. 6.
According to Appellant, Okubo’s data selection unit 62 (corresponding to
the claimed operation unit) merely selects digital data of optimum light
distribution patterns stored in storage unit 4, “but does not generate a desired
intensity profile through calculation or mathematical computing in response
to current environment conditions.” Id. at 6–7.
We agree with Appellant and reverse the rejections based on Okubo.
Our analysis begins with determining the proper scope of the limitation
“calculate out a desired intensity profile” as required by claim 1. See Key
Pharms. v. Hercon Labs. Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 714 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[N]ot
unlike a determination of infringement, a determination of anticipation, as
well as obviousness, involves two steps. First is construing the claim, . . .
followed by, in the case of anticipation or obviousness, a comparison of the
construed claim to the prior art.”).
Although the Examiner relies on an extrinsic dictionary definition of
the term “calculate” to construe this limitation, we must first turn to the
Specification to determine how this term would be interpreted by one having
ordinary skill in this art. Final Act. 3; see In re Am. Acad. Sci. Tech Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“During examination, ‘claims . . . are
Appeal 2021-001844
Application 16/601,424

5
to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’”).
The Specification teaches that sensing unit 16, e.g., a thermal image
camera, “detect[s] surrounding conditions such as position changes of
surrounding objects” and then “convert[s] detected variations into electrical
signals such as image signals.” Spec. ¶ 21. Judgment unit 17 is electrically
connected to “sensing unit 16 to receive at least one image signal . . . to
recognize pedestrians or other dynamic objects” such as “by comparing
different images in consecutive image frames to find out position changes of
an object.” Id.
The judgment unit 17 transmits recognized information to
the operation unit 18 to analyze the information. The operation
unit 18 may calculate out a distance D, an angle A and a
luminous intensity distribution B of pedestrians or other dynamic
objects relative to the vehicle lighting system 1. The operation
unit 18 may, if necessary, compare the information transmitted
from the judgment unit 17 with a predetermined luminous
intensity distribution of the light source 10 to find out an area
needed to be reinforced in luminous intensity. In case
pedestrians or other dynamic objects exist in an area having
insufficient luminous intensity, control signals including
information of the distance D, angle A and luminous intensity
distribution B regarding the area are transmitted to the light
processing unit 14. The light processing unit 14 receives the
control signals from the [operation unit 18]2 and changes its

2 This paragraph appears to contain a typographical error by indicating unit
14 receives control signals from judgment unit 17. This is inconsistent with
Figure 2 and the remainder of paragraph 22 which indicates that operation
unit 18 generates control signals regarding distance D, angle A, and
luminous intensity distribution B for delivery to light processing unit 14.
Appeal 2021-001844
Application 16/601,424

6
intensity profile according to the control signals. Finally, the
non-uniform projection unit 15 changes the current intensity
profile to form a specific non-uniform intensity profile to
increase the luminous intensity of the area where pedestrians or
other dynamic objects exist.
Id. ¶ 22 (emphases added).
This workflow is illustrated in Figure 2 of the Drawings:

Figure 2 depicts a functional block diagram of a vehicle lighting system
which includes sensing unit 16, judgment unit 17, operation unit 18, light
processing unit 14, and non-uniform projection unit 15. Spec. ¶ 12.
Thus, according to the Specification, operation unit 18 “calculate[s]
out a desired intensity profile” by first calculating values for distance D,
angle A, and luminous intensity distribution D of a pedestrian or other

Spec. ¶ 22. In the event of further prosecution, Appellant is encouraged to
file a Specification amendment correcting this typographical error.
Appeal 2021-001844
Application 16/601,424

7
dynamic object. Operation unit 18 then determines if the luminous intensity
being projected into a given area by light source 10 is sufficient or whether it
should be reinforced. When the luminous intensity needs reinforcement,
operation unit 18 develops a “desired intensity profile” and sends control
signals regarding that desired profile to light processing unit 14, which
“changes its intensity profile according to the control signals.” Spec. ¶ 22;
see also id. ¶ 7 (discussing that “a desired intensity profile” is “calculate[d]
out” “[w]hen the intensity profile needs to be changed” (emphasis added)).
There is insufficient evidence that Okubo’s data selection unit 62 is
programmed to operate in this manner. Okubo stores digital data on a
plurality of light distribution patterns in storage unit 4. Okubo, 10:31–32.
That data “is divided in units of regions or countries in which the vehicle is
driven,” e.g., Japan or the United States, because “the optimum light
distribution pattern for the road conditions of left-hand traffic and many
narrow crossing . . . and twisty roads,” present in Japan is not the same as a
country like “the U.S. [which] is a right-hand side drive country and has
many wide, straight roads.” Id. at 10:43–54. Okubo teaches that “[t]he
digital data on the light distribution patterns . . . includes” data for different
scenarios such as whether the road is a general road, a highway or an urban
district, whether the road is straight or curved, and whether the beams should
be in low or high mode. Id. at 10:65–11:20.
Okubo’s system contains a “surrounding environment detector 5”
which, as the name suggests, “detects an environment surrounding the
vehicle and outputs a detection signal.” Id. at 12:22–24. Surrounding
environment detector 5 includes at least one sensor such as a steering sensor,
a raindrop sensor, a turn sensor, or wiper sensor, and outputs relevant signals
Appeal 2021-001844
Application 16/601,424

8
to controller 6. Id. at 12:24–48; Fig. 1. Okubo’s “controller 6 includes an
external signal input unit 60, a surrounding environment determination unit
61, a data selection unit 62, and a control signal output unit 63.” Id. at
13:15–17. “[E]xternal signal input unit 60 inputs an external signal such as
the detection signal of the surrounding environment detector 5 . . . and
outputs the external signal as a processing signal to . . . unit 61.” Id. at
13:18–23. Unit “61 determines the surrounding environment of the vehicle
based on the processing signal input from . . . unit 60 and outputs a
determination signal to the data selection unit 62” which “selects digital
data on the optimum light distribution pattern for the surrounding
environment of the vehicle from among digital data . . . stored in the storage
unit 4 based on the determination signal input from . . . unit 61.” Id. at
13:24–33 (emphases added).
To anticipate, Okubo’s data selection unit 62 must be programmed to
“calculate out a desired intensity profile.” As noted supra, that calculation
involves 1) performing distance, angle and luminous intensity distribution
calculations of a pedestrian or dynamic object, 2) determining whether such
pedestrian or dynamic object is sufficiently illuminated, and, if not, 3)
developing a “desired intensity profile” and sending control signals
including information regarding distance, angle and luminous intensity
distribution of the area to be illuminated. See Spec. ¶¶ 7, 22; see In re Noll,
545 F.2d 141, 148 (CCPA 1976) (stating that a “programmed machine is
structurally different from a machine without that program”); see also In re
Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395, 1399–1400 (CCPA 1969) (“[I]f a machine is
programmed in a certain new and unobvious way, it is physically different
from the machine without that program; its memory elements are differently
Appeal 2021-001844
Application 16/601,424

9
arranged. The fact that these physical changes are invisible to the eye
should not tempt us to conclude that the machine has not been changed.”).
On this record, the Examiner does not identify where Okubo discloses
that data selection unit 62 has the requisite programming that would enable
it to carry out these functions. Rather, the Examiner asserts that “a
calculation in [Okubo’s] selection process would be inherently conducted by
[data selection unit] 62 given the ‘digital data’” and points out that Okubo’s
controller 6 contains a CPU. Ans. 4–5. As Appellant correctly observes,
however, “Okubo contains no disclosure about which unit of . . . CPU 66
would perform mathematical computation.” Reply Br. 4. Thus, on this
record, the Examiner’s finding that Okubo’s data selection unit 62
“calculates out a desired intensity profile” has insufficient evidentiary
support. For this reason, the rejections based on Okubo cannot be sustained.
Rejection based on Masuda and Natsume
The Examiner concludes that Masuda and Natsume render claims 19
and 20 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Final Act. 12–13. Relevant to
this appeal, the Examiner finds that Masuda discloses the claimed “judgment
unit,” and maps that limitation to Masuda’s lamp ECU 402. Id. at 12.
Appellant disputes that finding, contending that Masuda’s lamp ECU
is not capable of determining whether to change an intensity profile of a
light beam according to an image signal and providing a judgment result.
Appeal Br. 13. To determine whether that argument has merit, we must first
construe the term “judgment result.” Key Pharms. v. Hercon Labs. Corp.,
161 F.3d at 714.
The Specification discloses that judgment unit 17 receives image
signals from sensing unit 16 and then “determine[s] whether to change the
Appeal 2021-001844
Application 16/601,424

10
intensity profile of the light beam according to the image signal, and the
operation unit receives a judgment result of the judgment unit.” Spec. ¶ 7.
“When the intensity profile needs to be changed in accordance with the
judgment result, the operation unit calculates out a desired intensity profile
and outputs a control signal” to light processing unit 14. Id. Dependent
claim 4 is also instructive. That claim specifies that the operation unit is
capable of outputting a recovery signal to the light processing unit “when the
intensity profile needs not to be changed in accordance with the judgment
result.” Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). Therefore, a “judgment result”
appears to be nothing more than the resulting determination of whether to
change the light beam’s intensity profile––i.e., a binary “yes” or “no”
answer.
Masuda discloses that lamp ECU 402 receives “positional information
on the pedestrians . . . identified by the image processing apparatus 504.”
Based on that information, light source control unit 410––which is part of
ECU 402 (see Fig. 5)––“may regulate a light source . . . so as to change the
color of the light distribution pattern.” Masuda 13:63–14:12; see Ans. 6–7
(addressing this disclosure and providing an annotated Figure 5). Thus,
Masuda’s lamp ECU 402 is capable of determining whether to change an
intensity profile of a light beam according to an image signal. Masuda
13:63–14:12.
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that a “judgment
result” is provided by Masuda’s lamp ECU 402 because light source control
unit 410 regulates the light source when there is a need to do so. Id. at
13:65, 14:9. Moreover, Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s finding
in the Answer that Masuda’s disclosure in columns 13 and 14 teaches the
Appeal 2021-001844
Application 16/601,424

11
limitation in dispute. Compare Ans. 7, with Reply Br. 5–6. For these
reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19 and 20.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–18.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19 and 20.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 11,
13, 15, 18
102(a)(1) Okubo 1–9, 11,
13, 15, 18
10 103 Okubo, Koike  10
12 103 Okubo, Chiu 12
14 103 Okubo, Mori 14
16 103 Okubo, Krietzman 16
17 103 Okubo, Sharon 17
19, 20 103 Masuda, Natsume 19, 20
Overall
Outcome
19, 20 1–18

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