MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 17, 20202019003411 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2020) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation