Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 18, 2021

2020000780 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 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.
15/893,206 02/09/2018 Hans M. MOLIN 102761.66245C1 8879
87369 7590 05/18/2021
Crowell & Morning LLP
Intellectual Property Group
P.O. Box 14300
Washington, DC 20044-4300
EXAMINER
AN, SHAWN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2021 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):
edocket@crowell.com
mloren@crowell.com
tche@crowell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS M. MOLIN, ANDREAS U. KUEHNLE,
MARTON GABOR GYORI, HUBA NEMETH, and
CATHY L. BOON
Appeal 2020-000780
Application 15/893,206
Technology Center 2400
BEFORE JEAN R. HOMERE, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.
ZADO, 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 1–10, 12, 14, 16 and 17. Appeal Br. 9.
Claims 11, 13, and 15 have been canceled. Claims App. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Bendix
Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000780
Application 15/893,206
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to the Specification, the “present invention relates to
systems and methods for generating an image of the surroundings of an
articulated vehicle.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
determining, by a processor, an angle between a first vehicle of
an articulated vehicle and a second vehicle of the articulated
vehicle as the first and second vehicles rotate laterally relative to
each other around a point at which the first and second vehicles
are connected to each other, based on a relative position between
a first camera arranged on the first vehicle and a second camera
arranged on the second vehicle, the first and second cameras
being located on a same side of the articulated vehicle;
receiving, by the processor, a first image from the first camera
arranged on the first vehicle and a second image from the second
camera arranged on the second vehicle, the first and second
images being obtained from the same side of the articulated
vehicle;
combining, by the processor, the first image and the second
image based on the relative position between the first camera and
the second camera to generate a combined image of surroundings
of the articulated vehicle on the same side thereof, wherein the
first image and the second image are combined by rotating the
first image and the second image with respect to each other,
based on the angle between the first vehicle and the second
vehicle;
detecting, by an active sensing system arranged on at least one
of the first vehicle and the second vehicle, objects in the
surroundings of the articulated vehicle; and
superimposing information and representations of the detected
objects on the combined image, wherein the combined image is
a birds-eye view image of the surroundings of the articulated
Appeal 2020-000780
Application 15/893,206
3
vehicle and the superimposed information indicates a type of the
detected objects and a likelihood of the articulated vehicle
colliding with the detected objects.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Naruoka US 2002/0134151 A1 Sept. 26, 2002
Camilleri US 2006/0125919 A1 June 15, 2006
Hongo US 2008/0044061 A1 Feb. 21, 2008
Englander US 2008/0122597 A1 May 29, 2008
Endo US 2009/0174574 A1 July 9, 2009
Nishiuchi US 7,840,026 B2 Nov. 23, 2010
Sumi US 2012/0013642 A1 Jan. 19, 2012
Roberts US 2014/0025284 A1 Jan. 23, 2014
Fukata US 2014/0169630 A1 June 19, 2014
Hollinger US 9,144,714 B2 Sept. 29, 2015

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Hongo, Roberts, Sumi,
Hollinger, Englander, and Camilleri. Final Act. 3–7.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combination of Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander, Camilleri, and
Fukata. Final Act. 7.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander,
Camilleri, and Endo. Final Act. 7–8.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander,
Camilleri, and Naruoka. Final Act. 8–9.
Appeal 2020-000780
Application 15/893,206
4
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander,
Camilleri, Naruoka, and Nishiuchi. Final Act. 9–10.
OPINION
Specification
The Specification generally relates to systems and methods for
generating an image of the surroundings of an articulated vehicle, in which
different parts of the vehicle are capable of moving with respect to each
other. Spec. ¶ 2. An example of an articulated vehicle is a tractor-trailer in
which the tractor and trailer may travel in different directions from each
other, for example when the tractor-trailer turns a corner. Id. Figure 4A of
the Specification, reproduced below, is illustrative.

Figure 4A illustrates an articulated vehicle. Spec. Fig. 4. The articulated
vehicle comprises first vehicle 200 and second vehicle 210, which are
capable of moving with respect to each other. Id. ¶ 25. First vehicle 200
and second vehicle 210 each include fixed cameras (220, 230, 240, 250, 260,
Appeal 2020-000780
Application 15/893,206
5
270) on each side of each respective vehicle. Id. The Specification explains
that it may be useful to determine the angle between the first and second
vehicles. Figure 4B, reproduced below, illustrates the angle α between first
vehicle 200 and second vehicle 210. Id. Fig. 4B.

Figure 4B illustrates an articulated vehicle comprising first vehicle 200 and
second vehicle 210, in which the alignment of first vehicle 200 and second
vehicle 210 differ by angle α. Spec. Fig 4, ¶ 26.
The Specification explains that one method of determining angle α
involves using cameras 220, 230, 240, 250, 260, and/or 270 to detect
common features in images recorded by the cameras. Spec. ¶ 27. For
example, camera 240, shown in Figure 4A, may protrude from the first
vehicle 200 and have a downward-looking fisheye lens. Id. In such
instance, the field of view of camera 240 would include everything below
the height of camera 240 and extend out to the horizon, including parts of
second vehicle 210, such as the left-front trailer edge, the wheels, and/or
markings on the side. Id. According to the Specification, these features can
be used to determine angle α between first vehicle 200 and second
vehicle 210. Id. ¶¶ 27–28.
Appeal 2020-000780
Application 15/893,206
6
Discussion
Appellant argues the Examiner has not shown that the asserted
combination of prior art teaches or suggests the following recitation of
independent claim 1, and similar recitations of independent claims 16 and 17
(“determining an angle” limitation):
determining, by a processor, an angle between a first vehicle of
an articulated vehicle and a second vehicle of the articulated
vehicle as the first and second vehicles rotate laterally relative to
each other around a point at which the first and second vehicles
are connected to each other, based on a relative position between
a first camera arranged on the first vehicle and a second camera
arranged on the second vehicle, the first and second cameras
being located on a same side of the articulated vehicle.
Appeal Br. 5–7. As a result, according to Appellant, the Examiner erred in
finding independent claims 1, 16, and 17 unpatentable. Id. Appellant argues
further that the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 2–10, 12, and 14
are improper due to their dependence on claim 1. Id. at 9.
For the reasons discussed below, we agree that the Examiner has not
shown the prior art teaches the “determining an angle” limitation.
Moreover, the Examiner’s rejections of the dependent claims do not cure
this deficiency. We therefore reverse the Examiner’s rejections of all claims
in this appeal—i.e., claims 1–10, 12, 14, 16, and 17. Because we reverse the
Examiner’s rejections of all appealed claims on this basis, we need not and
do not reach other grounds raised by Appellant in this appeal.
For the “determining an angle” limitation, the Examiner relies on
Hongo. Final Act. 3. Hongo relates to devices and methods for providing
connected vehicles (such as tractor-trailers) with surrounding visual field
support. Hongo ¶ 1. Figure 6 of Hongo, reproduced below, is illustrative.

Appeal 2020-000780
Application 15/893,206
7

Figure 6 shows a tractor-trailer (i.e., first and second vehicle) viewed from
above, and more specifically, illustrates a connecting angle formed by the
tractor and trailer. Hongo Fig. 6, ¶¶ 27, 75.
Hongo explains that when a connected vehicle, such as a tractor-
trailer, turns, the tractor and trailer bend at a connecting angle at the time of
the vehicle body turning. Id. ¶ 5. Hongo states that there are “[a] large
number of [proposed] methods of detecting the trailer connecting angle.” Id.
¶ 9. However, Hongo does not describe any such proposed methods. Id.
The only description Hongo provides regarding how to detect a connecting
angle is the statement that “a connecting angle detector” may be included.
Id. ¶ 15.
Although such statement gives no detail about how an “angle
detector” detects a connecting angle, the Examiner finds, nonetheless, that it
would have been obvious to detect a connecting angle by placing two
cameras on the same side of an articulated vehicle, one on the front vehicle
and one on the rear vehicle, and using the relative placement of the cameras
to determine the connecting angle. Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2020-000780
Application 15/893,206
8

None of the evidence the Examiner cites reasonably shows that it
would have been obvious to rearrange the cameras in Hongo to conform to
the claims, and then use the relative placement of the rearranged cameras in
order to determine a connecting angle. Final Act. 3 (citing Hongo Figs. 6, 7,
¶¶ 15, 27, 28, 72–80). As pointed out by Appellant, the arrangement of the
cameras in Hongo is completely different from the arrangement of cameras
required by the claims. Appeal Br. 6.
The claims require “a first camera arranged on the first vehicle and a
second camera arranged on the second vehicle, the first and second cameras
being located on a same side of the articulated vehicle.” Appeal Br. App’x
A, A-1 (Claim 1). Hongo does not place two cameras on the same side of
the tractor-trailer (i.e., connected vehicle), much less place one same-side
vehicle camera on the first vehicle and one on the second vehicle. Appeal
Br. 6. Rather, Hongo discloses placing one camera on each side of the
trailer, wherein each camera is a fisheye lens with 180 degree coverage (i.e.,
covers the entire side of the vehicle). Hongo Figs. 6, 7.
The only rationale the Examiner provides for rearranging the cameras
in Hongo is that it would have been obvious
as a matter of design preference/choice in selecting and viewing
the particular side of the articulated vehicle chosen just as long
as the end result of re-positioning the corresponding cameras
does not alter/change the anticipated end result. In this case, the
end result remains substantially the same.
Moreover, solely repositioning/relocating an apparatus/device
without altering/changing the end result doesn’t make it
patentable.
Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2020-000780
Application 15/893,206
9
Even if we were to accept this rationale for adding additional cameras
to Hongo, and for rearranging the cameras to conform to the manner
claimed, this analysis fails to explain why it would have been obvious to
then use the positioning of the cameras in order to detect the connecting
angle between the tractor and the trailer.
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has not shown that the
“determining an angle” limitation is taught or suggested by Hongo.
In addition to the findings based on Hongo, the Examiner notes that
Roberts provides additional support for the rejection. Appeal Br. 3.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Roberts teaches systems and methods
for determining relative position information obtained by using cameras
placed on the same side of a vehicle. Id. (citing Roberts Fig. 1B, ¶¶ 1, 46).
Roberts does not support the Examiner’s rejection. Roberts does not
teach or suggest placing two different cameras on two different vehicles, nor
teach determining an angle between two vehicles. As argued by Appellant,
Roberts teaches using SONAR or RADAR on one vehicle, to ascertain the
relative position of the one vehicle with respect to another vehicle. Appeal
Br. 7; Roberts Figs. 1A, 1B, ¶¶ 40, 44. The SONAR/RADAR sensors are
placed on the same side of the vehicle (i.e., the front of a car), but they are
not, as in the claims, each on a separate vehicle that comprises an articulated
vehicle. Roberts Figs. 1A, 1B, ¶¶ 40, 44.
Moreover, the SONAR and RADAR sensors are not used to
determine an angle. Each SONAR/RADAR sensor determines a distance
from the primary vehicle to a second vehicle, and these distances are used to
determine the location of the second vehicle. Id. However, there is no
disclosure of using these measurements to determine any angles, much less
an angle between a first vehicle and a second vehicle of an articulated
Appeal 2020-000780
Application 15/893,206
10
vehicle that rotate laterally around each other around a point at which the
vehicles are connected to each other, as recited in the claims. As noted
above, the vehicles in Roberts are not connected to each other, but rather are
separate vehicles.
Therefore, Roberts does support the Examiner’s rejection.
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has not shown that the
combination of prior art teaches or suggests the “determining an angle”
limitation. Therefore, the Examiner’s rejections of the appealed claims is
reversed.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
More specifically, we reverse the rejections of:
claims 1, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger,
Englander, and Camilleri;
claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination
of Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander, Camilleri, and Fukata;
claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combination of Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander, Camilleri, and
Endo;
claims 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combination of Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander, Camilleri, and
Naruoka; and
claims 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combination of Hongo, Roberts, Sumi, Hollinger, Englander, Camilleri,
Naruoka, and Nishiuchi.
Appeal 2020-000780
Application 15/893,206
11
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 9, 10, 12,
14, 16, 17
103(a) Hongo, Roberts,
Sumi, Hollinger,
Englander, Camilleri
1, 9, 10,
12, 14, 16,
17
2 103(a) Hongo, Roberts,
Sumi, Hollinger,
Englander, Camilleri,
Fukata
2
3, 4 103(a) Hongo, Roberts,
Sumi, Hollinger,
Englander, Camilleri,
Endo
3, 4
5, 7 103(a) Hongo, Roberts,
Sumi, Hollinger,
Englander, Camilleri,
Naruoka
5, 7
6, 8 103(a) Hongo, Roberts,
Sumi, Hollinger,
Englander, Camilleri,
Nishiuchi
6, 8
Overall
Outcome
1–10, 12,
14, 16, 17

REVERSED