MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 23, 2022

2021000860 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2022)

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. 15/421,483 02/01/2017 Yuesheng Lu MAG04 P-2939/423872 6690 153508 7590 03/23/2022 HONIGMAN LLP/MAGNA 650 TRADE CENTRE WAY SUITE 200 KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402 EXAMINER DEMOSKY, PATRICK E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/23/2022 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 YUESHENG LU, VIVEK VAID, and PATRICK A. MILLER Appeal 2021-000860 Application 15/421,483 Technology Center 2400 Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 12, 13, 16, and 19, all of the pending claims. Final Act. 1.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2012). Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Magna Electronics Inc. Appeal Br. 2. 2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed May 29, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed November 20, 2020); the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed December 30, 2019) and Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 18, 2020); and the Specification (“Spec.,” filed February 1, 2017). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents. Appeal 2021-000860 Application 15/421,483 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Specification relates to a driver assistance, vision, or imaging system for a vehicle that “provides a smart camera that can quickly (upon initial vehicle start up) provide video images for display to the driver of the vehicle, without having to wait for [a] machine vision processor to warm up and process the image data.” Spec. ¶¶ 4-5. As noted above, claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 12, 13, 16, and 19 are pending. Claims 1, 16, and 19 are independent. Appeal Br. 30-31 (claim 1), 32-33 (claim 16), 33-34 (claim 19) (Claims App.). Claims 2, 4, 6-8, 12, and 13 depend from claim 1. Id. at 31-32. Appellant cancels claims 3, 5, 9-11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20. Id. at 31-33, 34. Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed labels added and a disputed limitation emphasized, is representative. 1. A vision system for a vehicle, said vision system comprising: [(i)] a rear backup camera disposed at a rear portion of a vehicle and having a field of view exterior and rearward of the vehicle, said rear backup camera comprising an image sensor, wherein said rear backup camera is operable to capture raw image data; [(ii)] wherein said rear backup camera comprises a color camera; [(iii)] a display disposed in the vehicle and operable to display video images for viewing by a driver of the vehicle during operation of the vehicle; [(iv)] an image data processing chip that comprises a first system on a chip (SoC) that includes an image signal processor that receives raw image data captured by said rear backup camera and converts the received raw image data to a format suitable for machine vision processing; [(v)] wherein said image data processing chip processes the converted image data using machine vision data processing Appeal 2021-000860 Application 15/421,483 3 and, responsive to the machine vision data processing of the converted image data, generates an output indicative of detection of a pedestrian present in a rearward path of travel of the vehicle and in the field of view of said rear backup camera to assist a driver of the vehicle in maneuvering the vehicle in a rearward direction; [(vi)] wherein the output of said image data processing chip is communicated to a vehicle system of the vehicle via a communication bus of the vehicle; [(vii)] a video processing chip that comprises a second system on a chip (SoC) that receives raw image data captured by said rear backup camera and communicates image data to said display, and wherein the communicated image data is derived from raw image data captured by said rear backup camera, and wherein the communicated image data is in a format suitable for displaying at said display video images derived therefrom; [(viii)] wherein the communicated image data is communicated by said video processing chip to said display via low-voltage differential signaling (LVDS); [(ix)] wherein said display displays video images derived from the communicated image data received from said video processing chip via LVDS; and [(x)] wherein, for a reversing maneuver occurring at initial startup of the vehicle, video images derived from the communicated image data received from said video processing chip via LVDS are displayed by said display without delay but machine vision data processing of captured image data at said image data processing chip is delayed. Appeal Br. 30-31 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Each of claims 16 and 19 recites limitations corresponding to the disputed limitations of claim 1. Id. at 32-34; see Appeal Br. 25, 26. Appeal 2021-000860 Application 15/421,483 4 REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following references: Name3 Reference Issued/Published Filed Kook US 2012/0044351 A1 Feb. 23, 2012 Dec. 29, 2010 Lynam US 2012/0162427 A1 June 28, 2012 Dec. 21, 2011 Nix US 2013/0314503 A1 Nov. 28, 2013 May 15, 2013 The Examiner rejects: 1. claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Lynam and Nix (Final Act. 5-10); and 2. claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Lynam, Nix, and Kook (id. at 10-11). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Because we determine that reversal of the rejection of independent claim 1, as well as the rejection of the other independent claims, is dispositive, except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss the merits of the rejections of claims 2, 4, 6-8, 12, and 13 further herein. We address the rejections below. ANALYSIS As noted above, the Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings of Lynam and Nix. Final Act. 5-6. In 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2021-000860 Application 15/421,483 5 particular, the Examiner finds Lynam’s disclosure of a vehicle vision display system including a rearward viewing backup camera and internal display screen that “delay[s] user selectable display options or features during an initial reversing maneuver (upon startup of the vehicle)” (id. at 6) teaches or suggests claim 1’s limitations [(i)] through [(iii)] and [(vi)] through [(x)]. However, finding that Lynam does not explicitly disclose limitations [(iv)] and [(v)], the Examiner applies the teachings of Nix. Id. at 6-8. In particular, the Examiner finds Nix’s disclosure of a vehicular vision system that alerts a user to objects posing a risk of collision teaches or suggests the identified limitations. Id. Of particular relevance to our decision, claim limitation [(x)] recites wherein, for a reversing maneuver occurring at initial startup of the vehicle, video images derived from the communicated image data received from said video processing chip via [low-voltage differential signaling (LVDS)] are displayed by said display without delay but machine vision data processing of captured image data at said image data processing chip is delayed. The Examiner finds the limitation is taught or suggested by Lynam’s disclosure of maintaining a normal or unprocessed captured image “when a driver initially starts a vehicle and shifts into reverse gear, even if user selectable display options [(e.g., zooming in on a trailer hitch)] are selected/enabled.” Id. at 2-3 (citing Lynam ¶¶ 40, 42, 55-57). According to the Examiner, “machine vision processing includes altering the captured video (or, performing vision processing) in a variety of ways, including zooming in on a trailer hitch, changing a focal point, etc.” Id. at 3. Appellant argues: [D]elaying access to a trailer zoom function is not at all what is claimed. Instead, [according to claim 1] video image data received from the video processing chip are displayed without Appeal 2021-000860 Application 15/421,483 6 delay but machine vision data processing of captured image data at the image data processing chip is delayed. That is, . . . Lynam makes no disclosure or suggestion of delay of machine vision data processing, as claimed. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant further argues: [I]nstead of sending “normal” or “raw” image data to the display to speed up display of images (as the Examiner alleges), Lynam instead discloses delaying operation of the display (by delaying turning on the backlight) until the data is processed and ready for view. Regardless, as previously discussed, Lynam makes no disclosure or suggestion of machine vision data processing that is delayed, as claimed. Id. at 16. The Examiner responds: Lynam’s ¶ 0055-0056 . . . discusses that a display system may delay display features during an initial reversing maneuver of a vehicle. Provided, are examples in which a video zooms, focuses, or crops. Following a broadest reasonable interpretation of “machine vision data processing”, as provided in the instant claim set, zooming or narrowing a displayed image view is at least interpreted as performing machine vision data processing on received video images. The above ¶ 0055-0056 makes explicit mention of a situation in which the display system may delay activation of a zoom feature (under a “tow check” event) until after a period of time following the driver shifting into a reverse gear. Particularly, that the system may allow for shifting into reverse gear and delaying switching to a zoomed view for a given period of time. The system will operate to display the normal backup assist view for a minimum time period, and only after the delay time period has elapsed will the system switch to a zoomed view. Ans. 14. According to the Examiner, “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to modify the invention disclosed by Lynam to add the teachings of Nix in order to assist a driver in operation of a vehicle by detecting a pedestrian at the rear of the vehicle during a reversing maneuver. Id. at 8. Appeal 2021-000860 Application 15/421,483 7 Appellant replies, arguing the Examiner errs in interpreting the machine vision data processing of claim 1’s limitation [(x)] so as to broadly include image processing such as Lynam’s zooming: The broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the [S]pecification of “machine vision data processing,” despite the Examiner's contention, does not include “zooming or narrowing a displayed image view.” The plain and ordinary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art of “machine vision” is image- based automatic inspection and data analysis. Paragraph [0011] of the [Specification] recites that the camera may capture image data “such as for a machine vision system (such as for traffic sign recognition, headlamp control, pedestrian detection, collision avoidance, lane marker detection and/or the like).” None of these examples are anything like “zooming or narrowing a displayed image view.” Instead, all require models (e.g., neural networks) that analyze the image data in accordance with the traditional definition of machine vision data processing. Put plainly, machine vision, with its broadest interpretation in light of the [S]pecification, is using an algorithm or model to process image data to analyze or classify the image or objects within the image. Simple “zooming and narrowing” of displayed images is instead defined as “image processing” and in no shape or form constitutes machine vision. Thus, . . . the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim limitations [is] unreasonably broad. Reply Br. 6. Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible error because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to support the asserted interpretation of the disputed claim limitation. During examination, “claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[T]he Appeal 2021-000860 Application 15/421,483 8 PTO must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any definitions presented in the specification.”); In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.”). The broadest reasonable interpretation is assessed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In determining the broadest reasonable interpretation, it can be appropriate to consult a dictionary definition for guidance. TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062-63 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We begin with claim interpretation because, before a claim is properly interpreted, its scope cannot be compared to the prior art. Both anticipation under § 102 and obviousness under § 103 are two-step inquiries. The first step in both analyses is a proper construction of the claims. . . . The second step in the analyses requires a comparison of the properly construed claim to the prior art.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 353 F.3d 928, 933 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted). The phrase at issue in claim 1 is “for a reversing maneuver occurring at initial startup of the vehicle . . . machine vision data processing of captured image data at said image data processing chip is delayed” and, more particularly, what is required by the term “machine vision data processing.” Claim 1’s limitation [(v)] recites that the “image data processing chip processes the converted image data using machine vision data processing and, responsive to the machine vision data processing of the converted image data, generates an output indicative of detection of a pedestrian Appeal 2021-000860 Application 15/421,483 9 present in a rearward path of travel of the vehicle and in the field of view of said rear backup camera to assist a driver of the vehicle in maneuvering the vehicle in a rearward direction.” Thus, machine vision data processing analyzes image data to detect objects within an image. We next turn to the Specification which is, “[i]n most cases, the best source for discerning the proper context of claim terms.” Metabolite Labs., Inc. v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, 370 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although not providing an explicit definition for machine vision or machine vision data processing, the Specification describes and/or uses the term machine vision as follows: [A] forward viewing camera may be disposed at the windshield of the vehicle and view through the windshield and forward of the vehicle, such as for a machine vision system (such as for traffic sign recognition, headlamp control, pedestrian detection, collision avoidance, lane marker detection and/or the like). The vision system 12 includes a control or electronic control unit (ECU) or processor 18 that is operable to process image data captured by the camera or cameras and may detect objects or the like and/or provide displayed images at a display device 16 for viewing by the driver of the vehicle. Spec. ¶ 11 (emphasis added). The system creates a high reliability video pipeline independent of a machine vision pipeline. Since video is considered a fundamental feature to be provided by a vehicle camera, the independence from complex software associated with machine vision and image processing creates inherent reliability for the video pipeline. The increased reliability in hardware allows for an enhanced safety critical system design. The present invention also improves the quality of the machine vision algorithm by avoiding the digital image manipulation that is applied to enhance human perception in a viewing application. Id. ¶ 12 (emphasis added). Appeal 2021-000860 Application 15/421,483 10 The output of the system on chip 3 includes the results of machine vision algorithms and status information for the vehicle (such as, for example, objects detected, location of pedestrians detected and any warnings) on a communication bus 6. Id. ¶ 15 (emphasis added). The first system on chip (SoC) 23 is responsible for machine vision and includes an independent ISP block (shown as ISP_ 1) to convert the image data into format suitable for machine vision algorithms (where the first SoC may perform further processing for machine vision systems or may communicate the converted image data to an image processor of a driver assistance system that processes the communicated converted image data (such as for object detection or lane marker detection or traffic sign recognition or the like). Id. ¶ 18 (emphasis added). The output 27 of the first SoC 23 includes the results of machine vision algorithms and status information for the vehicle (such as, for example, objects detected, location of pedestrians detected and any warnings). Id. ¶ 19 (emphasis added). Thus, the Specification supports Appellant’s argument that “machine vision, [given] its broadest interpretation in light of the [S]pecification, is using an algorithm or model to process image data to analyze or classify the image or objects within the image.” Reply Br. 6. Extrinsic evidence further supports a finding that machine vision data processing is a particular process use to process image data to analyze or classify the image or objects within the image. In particular, a technical dictionary equates machine vision with computer vision,4 the latter defined as “[t]he use of digital computer techniques to extract, characterize, and 4 Machine Vision. MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING 346 (2004) (“MCGRAW-HILL DICT.”). Appeal 2021-000860 Application 15/421,483 11 interpret information in visual images of a three-dimensional world. Also known as machine vision.”5 Another dictionary defines computer vision as “[t]he processing of visual information by a computer. Computer vision is a form of artificial intelligence that creates a symbolic description of images that are generally input from a video camera or sensor in order to convert the images to digital form.”6 Both definitions are consistent with the Specification’s description of the term machine vision data processing. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1322-23 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[J]udges are free to consult dictionaries and technical treatises at any time in order to better understand the underlying technology and may also rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.”). In contrast, the Examiner provides insufficient evidence that machine vision is so broad as to be equivalent to Lynam’s video zoom feature that causes a “rearward viewing camera and/or . . . video display device [to zoom] and/or focus[] and/or crop[] the field of view or displayed images to show” a region of interest. See Lynam ¶ 55. Therefore, on this record, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner errs in broadly interpreting “machine vision data processing of captured image data” to be the process of zooming or narrowing a displayed image view. See Ans. 14. Thus, we further agree with Appellant that Lynam fails to teach or suggest the temporal requirements of claim 1’s limitation [(x)] wherein, for a reversing maneuver occurring at initial startup of the vehicle 5 Computer Vision. Id. at 109. 6 MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 121 (5th ed. 2002). Appeal 2021-000860 Application 15/421,483 12 . . . machine vision data processing of captured image data at said image data processing chip is delayed. Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 or the rejection of independent claims 16 and 19, which include corresponding limitations and are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 (Final Act. 10). Furthermore, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent 2, 4, 6-8, 12, and 13, which depend from base claim 1. DECISION 1. The Examiner errs in rejecting: a. claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Lynam and Nix; and b. claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Lynam, Nix, and Kook. 2. Thus, on this record, claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 12, 13, 16, and 19 are not unpatentable. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 12, 13, 16, and 19. Appeal 2021-000860 Application 15/421,483 13 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 16, 19 103 Lynam, Nix 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 16, 19 8 103 Lynam, Nix, Kook 8 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4, 6- 8, 12, 13, 16, 19 REVERSED