MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 1, 2021

2019005615 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 1, 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.
14/573,307 12/17/2014 Nikhil Gupta MAG04 -P2424-423804 5366
153508 7590 01/01/2021
HONIGMAN LLP/MAGNA
650 TRADE CENTRE WAY
SUITE 200
KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, KATHLEEN V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/01/2021 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 NIKHIL GUPTA
Appeal 2019-005615
Application 14/573,307
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Magna
Electronics Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005615
Application 14/573,307

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to a vehicle vision system “to determine
the presence and/or approach of a cross traffic object that may cross the
forward or rearward path of travel of the equipped vehicle.” Spec. ¶ 15.
Claims 1–20 are pending; claims 1, 12, and 18 are independent. Appeal Br.
29–35. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphasis added):
1. A vision system of a vehicle, said vision system
comprising (¶ [0014]; Figure 1)[2]:
a camera disposed at a vehicle and having a field of view
exterior of the vehicle;
wherein said camera has a wide angle lens with more
optical distortion at side regions of the field of view than at a
center region of the field of view;
wherein said camera is operable to capture frames of
image data;
an image processor operable to process image data
captured by said camera;
wherein said image processor, responsive to image
processing of a frame of captured image data, determines
gradient information of the frame of captured image data, and
wherein the determined gradient information comprises
information indicative of intensity gradients present in the scene
viewed by said camera;
wherein said image processor, responsive at least in part
to the determined gradient information, determines edges of
intensity gradients at one of the side regions of the field of view
where the captured image data has more optical distortion and
lower resolution and less pixel motion as compared to the center
region of the field of view;

2 We note “[r]eference characters corresponding to elements recited in the
detailed description and the drawings may be used,” but “the presence or
absence of such reference characters does not affect the scope of a claim.”
MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appeal 2019-005615
Application 14/573,307

3
wherein said vision system, responsive to determined
edges of intensity gradients, determines presence of a potential
cross traffic object at the side region of the field of view where
the captured image data has more optical distortion and lower
resolution and less pixel motion as compared to the center region
of the field of view;
wherein said image processor processes multiple frames
of captured image data to determine movement of an upper
portion of a determined edge of an intensity gradient of the
determined potential cross traffic object and a lower portion of
the determined edge of the intensity gradient of the determined
potential cross traffic object at the side region of the field of view
where the captured image data more optical distortion and lower
resolution and less pixel motion as compared to the center region;
and
wherein said vision system, responsive to said image
processor processing multiple frames of captured image data and
determining movement of the upper portion of the determined
edge of the intensity gradient of the determined potential cross
traffic object relative to the lower portion of the determined edge
of the intensity gradient of the determined potential cross traffic
object at the side region of the field of view where the captured
image data has more optical distortion and lower resolution and
less pixel motion as compared to the center region, determines if
the detected potential cross traffic object is a three dimensional
cross traffic object that is moving toward the center region of the
field of view and toward a predicted path of the vehicle.
Appeal Br. 29, 30.
References and Rejections
Claims 1–6, 8–10, 12–16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (WO 2012/145819 A1; published
Nov. 1, 2012) and Zhang (US 2015/0042799 A1; published Feb. 12, 2015).
Final Act. 7.
Appeal 2019-005615
Application 14/573,307

4
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Gupta, Zhang, and Lewin (US 2007/0177011 A1; published Aug. 2, 2007).
Final Act. 27.
Claims 11, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gupta, Zhang, and Pawlicki (US 2010/0002081 A1,
published Jan. 7, 2010). Final Act. 28.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error, because “Gupta
does not disclose or suggest processing higher distortion, lower resolution
image data to . . . detect potential cross traffic objects at the side region of
the field of view where the captured image data has more optical distortion,”
as claimed. Appeal Br. 16, 17. Appellant contends, “instead Gupta teaches
opposite to that by teaching that the distortion of the fish-eye lens needs to
be corrected before any processing to detect objects or distances or the like.”
Id. at 17 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds the “claims . . . do not [re]cite that distortion
correction cannot be performed,” as the disputed limitation “does not imply
that the side regions always have to have more optical distortion and lower
resolution, and does not mean that no other processing can be performed.”
Ans. 5 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds, therefore, the disputed
limitations are met by Gupta’s teachings of “gradient information of image
objects are used to detect objects[,] and objects’ contours or edges can be
extracted,” after performing “distortion correction [in] the captured image
from the fish-eye lens in order to process regions in the images that have
distortion due to the wide . . . lens.” Id. at 4, 5.
Appeal 2019-005615
Application 14/573,307

5
Claim 1 recites the image processor “processes multiple frames of
captured image data to determine movement of an . . . edge of an intensity
gradient of the determined potential cross traffic object,” wherein the
determined potential cross traffic object is “at the side region of the field of
view where the captured image data more optical distortion and lower
resolution and less pixel motion as compared to the center region.” We find
the Examiner’s construction of this limitation to be in error.
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. And it is not simply an
interpretation that is not inconsistent with the specification. It is
an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the
inventor describes [the] invention in the specification, i.e., an
interpretation that is consistent with the specification.
In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quotations
and emphasis omitted).
Appellant’s Specification explains that vehicles require “fish-eye
optics” to image across a wide area, but these optics can make it “difficult to
achieve the required performance accuracy required without significant
processing power needed to process higher resolution images.” Spec. ¶¶ 16,
19. The invention uses “[g]radients [which] basically provide a sparse
representation of the image and thus require only a very limited dataset to be
stored and/or processed,” to determine objects in “the high angular field of
view (FOV) areas, where there is the highest distortion and lowest
resolution, and where there is very little pixel motion.” Id. ¶¶ 26, 24.
Appellant’s disclosure further provides “images showing how an object or
person is detected using vertical gradient detection,” by depicting identified
objects in warped fish-eye images. Id. ¶ 11; Figs. 3, 4.
Appeal 2019-005615
Application 14/573,307

6
We disagree with the Examiner’s construction of the claim, that “[t]he
claimed limitation just cites detect gradient and detect movements of
potential cross traffic object[s] . . . and does not explicitly disclose
specifically how to do that[3] [or] that distortion correction cannot be
performed.” Ans. 5. As described above, Appellant’s disclosure describes
identifying objects in a distorted, low resolution image by determining
gradients from optically distorted data. See Figs. 3, 4. We are persuaded by
Appellant that, consistent with the Specification, claim 1 requires the object
to be determined in a distorted side region of the image. See Appeal Br. 17;
Reply Br. 3, 4.
In contrast with the broadest reasonable construction of claim 1,
Gupta teaches that “[b]efore the physical distance of the pixel locations can
be estimated . . . , the fish-eye distortion of the lens needs to be corrected.”
Gupta ¶ 78; see also Gupta Fig. 12, ¶ 16. This distortion correction occurs
prior to determining “distance and trajectory.” Gupta ¶ 78. Thus, we find
Gupta does not teach or suggest the recited “determin[ing] movement of . . .
the determined edge of the intensity gradient of the determined potential
cross traffic object at the side region of the field of view where the captured
image data more optical distortion and lower resolution and less pixel
motion.” See Appeal Br. 17. The Examiner does not rely on Zhang for
these limitations. See Ans. 6, 7. Accordingly, we find the combination of
Gupta and Zhang does not teach or suggest all limitations of claim 1.

3 We note the issue of whether the Specification provides sufficient written
description support for the claim limitations is not before us, as there are no
pending rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112. See MPEP § 1213.02 (“The
Board’s primary role is to review the adverse decision as presented by the
Examiner, and not to conduct its own separate examination of the claims.”).
Appeal 2019-005615
Application 14/573,307

7
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1,
independent claims 12 and 18 which recite similar limitations, or the claims
dependent thereon.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–10,
12–16, 18,
19
103 Gupta, Zhang 1–6, 8–10,
12–16, 18,
19
7 103 Gupta, Zhang,
Lewin
7
11, 17, 20 103 Gupta, Zhang,
Pawlicki
11, 17, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED