Ex Parte Breed

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 7, 2012

11558996 (B.P.A.I. May. 7, 2012)

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.
11/558,996 11/13/2006 David S. Breed ATI-423 3338
22846 7590 05/07/2012
BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ
8170 McCormick Boulevard, Suite 223
Skokie, IL 60076-2914
EXAMINER
MANCHO, RONNIE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/07/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID S. BREED
____________

Appeal 2011-011133
Application 11/558,996
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-7 and 12-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schofield (US
6,953,253 B2; iss. Oct. 11, 2005) and Bechtel (US 5,537,003; iss. Jul. 16,
1996). App. Br 5, 9. Claims 8-11 and 20 were withdrawn. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2011-011133
Application 11/558,996

2
THE INVENTION
Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter on appeal:
1. A vehicle including a passenger compartment and
a system for obtaining information about objects exterior of and
apart from the vehicle, comprising:
a rear view mirror assembly arranged proximate a
windshield of the vehicle and in the passenger compartment,
said rear view mirror assembly including a mirror;
an imaging device arranged on said rear view mirror
assembly and having a field of view extending forward through
the windshield, said imaging device obtaining images of objects
exterior of and apart from the vehicle and in its field of view;
and
a processor coupled to said imaging device and arranged
to process the images obtained by said imaging device to obtain
information about the objects from the images.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 1-3, 6, 12, 14, 15, and 18 as a group and
separately argues claims 4, 5, 7, 13, 16, 17, and 19. App. Br. 10-13. We
select claim 1 as representative of the group and address the arguments for
claims 4, 5, 7, 13, 16, 17, and 19. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Claims 2, 3, 6, 12, 14, 15, and 18 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner found that Schofield discloses the vehicle of claim 1,
with a rear view mirror assembly, an imaging device, a processor coupled to
the imaging device, and at least one vehicular component coupled to and
controlled by the processor. Ans. 3-4, 7-9. The Examiner also found that if
Schofield does not disclose a forward looking imaging device before the
June 7, 1995 priority date of Appellant’s Specification (Ans. 4), then Bechtel
discloses a rear view mirror assembly, an imaging device with a forward
looking field of view arranged on the rear view mirror assembly, and a
Appeal 2011-011133
Application 11/558,996

3
processor coupled to the imaging device to process the images obtained by
the imaging device. Ans. 4-5. See also Ans. 13 (assuming that Schofield
does not qualify as prior art, “Bechtel replaces the Schofield imaging
device.”)
Appellant argues that Schofield is not prior art because Appellant
disclosed the claimed subject matter in Application No. 08/474,786 that was
filed on June 7, 1995,1 whereas the disclosure in Schofield relied upon by
the Examiner to disclose a forward looking imaging device (Fig. 6B and the
accompanying disclosure) was filed on June 7, 1995 as part of Application
No. 08/478,093 and therefore is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). App.
Br. 10-13. We agree. Breed discloses that Figure 8 illustrates an external
monitoring system for detecting headlights of oncoming vehicles and tail
lights of vehicles in front of a vehicle 810 using a CCD array that senses
visible light without a separate source of illumination. Breed, col. 19, ll. 26-
31; fig. 8. Breed also discloses that Figure 8 depicts a side view of a
passenger compartment illustrating a sensor for sensing the headlights of
oncoming vehicles and/or taillights of a leading vehicle. Breed, col. 9, ll.
54-58. We agree with Appellant that Figure 8 illustrates a rear view mirror
assembly as numeral 811, although the specification of Breed does not
further identify element 811. Figures 1A-1E of Breed disclose a rear view
mirror as a thin rectangular element 105 that is connected to an interior
surface of the windshield by a stem, and Figure 8 of Breed discloses a thin
rectangular element affixed to an inner portion of the windshield by a stem.
Figures 1A-1E also disclose transmitters and receivers 114 at the bottom of
rear view mirror 105, and Figure 8 discloses an element mounted on a rear

1 Application No. 08/474,786 issued as US 5,845,000 (hereinafter “Breed”).
Appeal 2011-011133
Application 11/558,996

4
surface of the rear view mirror with dotted lines extending therefrom. We
agree with Appellant that a skilled artisan would understand this element to
be a CCD array2 based on Figure 8 and the accompanying disclosure in
Breed at col. 9, ll. 54-58 and col. 19, ll. 26-53. See App. Br. 10-12.
Because Breed discloses the claimed subject matter at least as of the
June 7, 1995 filing date, we agree with Appellant that Schofield’s June 7,
1995 disclosure of a forward looking imaging device is not prior art to this
claimed subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). App. Br. 12. Although
Schofield cannot serve as prior art, we agree with the Examiner that Bechtel
discloses a rear view mirror assembly, an imaging device having a field of
view extending forward through the windshield, and a processor coupled to
the imaging device as called for in claim 1 and adopt the Examiner’s
findings as our own. See Ans. 4-5, 13. Appellant has not shown error in any
of the Examiner’s findings that Bechtel discloses the claimed subject matter
of claim 1. See App. Br. 10-13. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1-3, 6, 12, 14, 15, and 18 based on Bechtel. See In re McDaniel, 293
F.3d 1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“It is well settled that ‘anticipation is the
epitome of obviousness.’” (citations omitted)).
Claims 4, 5, 7, 13, 16, 17, 19
The Examiner rejected dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 13, 16, 17, and 19 as
obvious over Schofield and Bechtel. In each rejection, the Examiner relied
on the disclosure of Schofield in the abstract, Figure 6(B), column 6, lines
66 to column 7, line 9, and column 33, line 50 to column 35, line 22. See

2 Breed defines a CCD array as being used to convert an image into an
electrical signal and to include all devices that are capable of converting
light frequencies, including infrared and ultraviolet, into electrical signals.
Col. 13, ll. 30-34.
Appeal 2011-011133
Application 11/558,996

5
Ans. 6-7, 8, 9-10.3 These disclosures in Schofield relate to a photosensing
array that senses a field of view forward of the rear view mirror and thus are
entitled to a filing date of June 7, 1995. As a result, these disclosures of
Schofield are not prior art to the subject matter of claims 4, 5, 7, 13, 16, 17,
and 19, which are entitled to a filing date of June 7, 1995 as discussed supra.
The Examiner did not rely on Bechtel to disclose any features of claims 4, 5,
7, 13, 16, 17, and 19. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejections of
claims 4, 5, 7, 13, 16, 17, and 19.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 12, 14, 15, and 18 is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 4, 5, 7, 13, 16, 17, and 19 is REVERSED.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

mls

3 The Examiner also cited figs. 1 and 2 of Schofield. These figures disclose
a rear view mirror 6 with rearward-focused lens 2 and a vehicle 20 and do
not disclose the subject matter of claims 4, 5, 7, 13, 16, and 17.