MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 17, 2020

2019003411 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 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.
15/367,226 12/02/2016 William J. Chundrlik JR. MAG04- P2895/423919 5379
153508 7590 11/17/2020
HONIGMAN LLP/MAGNA
650 TRADE CENTRE WAY
SUITE 200
KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402
EXAMINER
RABOVIANSKI, JIVKA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2020 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 WILLIAM J. CHUNDRLIK JR, and KRISHNA KORAVADI

Appeal 2019-003411
Application 15/367,226
Technology Center 2400

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and JAMES B. ARPIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 1–20, all of the pending claims.2
Appeal Br. 1, Claims App.
We affirm-in-part.

1 We refer to the Specification filed Dec. 2, 2016 (“Spec.”); the Final Office
Action, mailed June 6, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed Nov. 1,
2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Jan. 30, 2019
(“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed Mar. 27, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to the “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Magna Electronics Inc., as the real party-in-
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003411
Application 15/367,226

2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a driver
assistance/ vehicle vision system for allowing first vehicle (100) to transfer
captured and compressed video images to second vehicle (200) via dedicated
short range communication (DSRC) radios (104, 203). Spec. ¶¶ 5, 6, 20, 21.
Figures 3 and 4, reproduced and discussed below, are useful for
understanding the claimed subject matter:

Figures 3 and 4 above illustrate a system architecture with
DSRC radios (104, 203) for transferring compressed video
images from lead vehicle (100) to following vehicle (200)
including image processor (206), which processes the
Appeal 2019-003411
Application 15/367,226

3
compressed video images for subsequently detecting
lanes/objects. Id. ¶¶ 11, 20, and 21.
Claims 1, 16, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below
with disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative:
1. A communication system for vehicles, said
communication system comprising:
a camera disposed at a first vehicle and having a field of
view exterior of the first vehicle, said camera capturing image
data;
a first communication device disposed at the first vehicle,
said first communication device wirelessly transmitting image
data captured by said camera;
a second communication device disposed at a second
vehicle, said second communication device receiving the
transmitted captured image data from said first communication
device; and
wherein an image processor disposed at the second
vehicle processes the received transmitted captured image data
for a driver assistance system of the second vehicle.

Appeal Br. 38 (Claims App.)
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Reference Date
Mainardi US 4,910,793 Mar. 20, 1990
Pratt US 2008/0068455 A1 Mar. 20, 2008
Carvajal US 2016/0019497 A1 Jan. 21, 2016
Kuehnle US 2016/0048966 A1 Feb. 18, 2016
Gieseke US 2017/0050672 A1 Feb. 23, 2017

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-003411
Application 15/367,226

4
IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 as follows:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6–10, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Pratt. Final Act. 2–7. 4
Claims 3, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Pratt and Mainardi. Id. at 7–8.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Pratt and Carvajal. Id. at 8–9.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
teachings of Pratt. Id. at 10.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Pratt and Kuehnle. Id. at 10–11.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Pratt and Gieseke. Id. at 11–12.
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments in the order they are presented in
the Appeal Brief pages 14–21, and the Reply Brief pages 2–11. Arguments
not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2014).
1. Anticipation Rejection
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Pratt

4 Claim 17 depends from base claim 16, and claims 19 and 20 depend from
base claim 18. Therefore, the Examiner improperly rejects dependent claims
17, 19, and 20 under anticipation while their respective base claims are
rejected under obviousness. Accordingly, we treat these dependent claims
as rejected together with their respective base claims.
Appeal 2019-003411
Application 15/367,226

5
describes a second vehicle having an image processor for processing
transmitted captured image data for driver assistance, as recited in
independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 7, 16. In particular, Appellant argues that
Pratt’s disclosure of a following vehicle with a monitor to display of images
received from a first vehicle does not describe the disputed claim limitations.
Id. at 16–17, and 19 (citing Pratt ¶¶ 5, 25, 44). According to Appellant, the
cited paragraphs of Pratt merely describe the following vehicle equipped
with a monitor for displaying received images, but it is otherwise silent
regarding the vehicle being equipped with a processor for processing the
received video images. Id. at 17. Further, Appellant argues the Examiner’s
reliance upon paragraph 13 of Pratt is misplaced because it describes another
embodiment in the Moore reference, which cannot be properly relied upon
to reject the claims under anticipation.5 Id. at 19. Nonetheless, Appellant
argues Moore describes a vehicle equipped with a processor for processing
video images captured by the same vehicle. Id. at 20 (citing Pratt ¶ 13).
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
Pratt discloses a trailer having mounted thereon viewing system (100)
including a camera system for capturing video images and transmitting them
to a monitoring system or to a display monitor. Pratt ¶¶ 39, 40. Pratt also
discloses that the video images captured by the first vehicle may be
transmitted to a following vehicle’s monitor for subsequent display. Id.
¶¶ 25, 40, and 44. Additionally, Pratt discloses (in the background section) a
rear viewing system for tractor-trailer vehicles, wherein an image capturing
device is mounted on tractor to capture images around the trailer, and to

5 U.S. Patent No. 6,690,413 issued to Moore on Feb. 10, 2004, referenced in
the background section of Pratt. Pratt ¶ 13.
Appeal 2019-003411
Application 15/367,226

6
transmit the captured image data to a computer for processing and
subsequently displaying on a monitor. Id. ¶ 13.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that Pratt’s disclosure of
the first vehicle capturing an image and forwarding the image to a following
vehicle’s monitor describes the following vehicle as equipped with an image
processor for processing the received image, as required by the claim.
Ans. 12 (citing Pratt ¶ 44). We agree with Appellant that Pratt’s disclosure is
not concerned with processing the transmitted image at the following
vehicle. Instead, Pratt is concerned with processing the image at the vehicle
where it was captured and merely displaying it at the second vehicle’s
monitor. Further, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner improperly
relies upon other embodiments disclosed in the background section of Pratt
to reject the claims under anticipation. In an anticipation rejection, “it is not
enough that the prior art reference . . . includes multiple, distinct teachings
that [an ordinary] artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed
invention.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). Rather, the reference must “clearly and unequivocally disclose
the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention]
without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures
not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.” Id.
(quoting In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972)). Thus, while
“[s]uch picking and choosing may be entirely proper in the making of a [35
U.S.C. §] 103, obviousness rejection . . . it has no place in the making of a
[35 U.S.C. §] 102, anticipation rejection.” Arkley, 455 F.2d at 587–88.
While “combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a
prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness” (Boston Scientific
Appeal 2019-003411
Application 15/367,226

7
Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009)), we note
that the court in Boston Scientific Scimed was considering a question of
obviousness, in contrast to the question of anticipation presented here. In
the context of anticipation, a prior art reference anticipates the claimed
invention under 35 U.S.C. § 102 only if every element of a claimed
invention is identically shown in that single reference, arranged as they are
in the claims. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Because Appellant has shown at least one reversible error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1, we do not reach
Appellant’s remaining arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1. Likewise, we do
not sustain the anticipation rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, 6–10, 12, and
15, which also recite the disputed limitations.
2. Obviousness Rejections
a. Claims 3, 5, 11, 13, 14, and 18–20
Because the Examiner does not rely upon the secondary references to
cure the noted deficiencies of Pratt discussed above with respect to
independent claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of dependent claims 3, 5, 11, 13, and 14, which also recite the
disputed limitations. Further, because claims 18–20 also recite the disputed
limitations of claim 1, we likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of those claims.
b. Claims 16 and 17
Regarding independent claim 16, Appellant argues that the proposed
combination of Pratt and Mainardi does not teach or suggest a towing
Appeal 2019-003411
Application 15/367,226

8
vehicle having (1) an image processor for processing image data received
from the trailer vehicle or (2) a display device for displaying the received
image data. Appeal Br. 28. This argument is not persuasive. As noted
above, Pratt discloses a following vehicle equipped with a display device for
displaying image data received from a first device. Pratt ¶¶ 25, 44. We are
satisfied that Pratt’s disclosure of the following vehicle having a monitor to
display captured images received from a first vehicle teaches or suggests the
recited towing vehicle including a display device for displaying received
image data, as recited in independent claim 16. Because the proposed
combination of Pratt and Mainardi teaches or suggests at least one of the
alternative claim limitations required by the disputed claim language, we
agree with the Examiner that the cited combination teaches or suggests the
disputed claim limitations. Ans. 16. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 16, as well as claim 17 depending
therefrom.
VI. DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s anticipation of claims 1, 2, 4, 6–10, 12,
and 15 and the obviousness rejections of claims 3, 5, 11, 13, 14, and 18–20.
However, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claim 16, and claim 17 depending therefrom.

Appeal 2019-003411
Application 15/367,226

9
VII. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 6–10,
12, 15 102(a)(1) Pratt
1, 2, 4, 6–10,
12, 15
3, 16–20 103 Pratt, Mainardi 16, 17 3, 18–20
5 103 Pratt, Carvajal 5
13 103 Pratt 13
11 103 Pratt, Kuehnle 11
14 103 Pratt, Gieseke 14
Overall
Outcome 16, 17 1–15, 18–20
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART