Ex Parte Bowden et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2018

14540785 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/540,785 11/13/2014
59582 7590 06/29/2018
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
2600 WEST BIG BEA VER ROAD
SUITE 300
TROY, MI 48084-3312
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Upton Beall Bowden
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
46107-02147(V214-0025) 8810
EXAMINER
MCCULLEY,RYAND
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2018 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte UPTON BEALL BOWDEN, DALE 0. CRAMER, DAVID
CHRISTOPHER ROUND, and Y ANINA GONCHARENKO
Appeal2018-001884
Application 14/540, 785 1
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL D. STRAUSS, HUNG H. BUI, and SHARON PENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 7-10, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Visteon Global
Technologies, Inc. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed June
13, 2017; Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed December 11, 2017; Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.") mailed October 10, 2017; Advisory Action ("Adv. Act.")
mailed March 3, 2017; Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed October
12, 2016; and original Specification ("Spec.") filed November 13, 2014.
Appeal2018-001884
Application 14/540,785
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "a system and method for adapting a
display on a transparent electronic display" such as a heads-up display
(HUD) installed on or integrated into a windshield of a vehicle. Spec. ,r,r 15,
22, 31.
Claim 7-the only independent claim on appeal-illustrates the
claimed subject matter, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in
italics:
7. A system for adapting a display on a transparent electronic
display with a virtual window, comprising:
an image detector to detect an image of an object based on a
virtual window defined by the transparent electronic display, the image
detector receiving an image of the virtual window from a front facing
camera;
an object augmentor to augment the object; and
a display re-renderer to transmit information about the
augmentation to the transparent display, and to re-adjust a size of the
virtual window dynamically based on a speed of a vehicle;
wherein the transparent electronic display is integrated into a
front window of a vehicle, and has a maximum planar size larger than
the size of the virtual window, and
the object augmentor augments the object based on the object
being within the dynamically re-adjusted virtual window.
App. Br. 10 (Claims App'x).
Evidence Considered
Miyagawa US 2015/0242694 Al Aug. 27, 2015
Chau et al. US 2014/0070934 Al Mar. 13, 2014
Eng et al. US 2013/0321628 Al Dec. 5, 2013
Rose et al. US 2012/0229596 Al Sep. 13,2012
2
Appeal2018-001884
Application 14/540,785
EXAMINER'S REJECTION3
Claims 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chau and Rose. Final Act. 6-9.
ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 7, the Examiner finds Chau teaches Appellants'
claimed "system for adapting a display on a transparent electronic display
with a virtual window" in the context of a heads-up display (HUD)
projecting a virtual image onto a vehicle's windshield that includes: (1) "an
image detector to detect an image of an object based on a virtual window
defined by the transparent electronic display"; (2) "an object augmentor to
augment the object;" and (3) "a display re-renderer to transmit information
about the augmentation to the transparent display." Final Act. 3--4 (citing
Chau ,r,r 2, 13, 15, 26).
To support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner relies on
Rose for teaching "a driver display ( e.g. display 605 of Fig. 6) having a
window (e.g. driver's display window 606 of Fig. 6)" with "a maximum
planar size larger than the size of the window" and "re-adjusting a size of
the window dynamically based on the speed of the vehicle ('the driver's
display window 606 may be automatically reduced ( or in some cases
expanded) as the vehicle speed increases'). Final Act. 4 (citing Rose ,r 73,
Fig. 6); see also Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 2-3.
3 Claims 7-10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite.
Final Act. 2. However, this rejection was withdrawn in the Examiner's
Answer, and is thus, not before us. Ans. 2.
3
Appeal2018-001884
Application 14/540,785
Rose's Figure 6 is reproduced below with additional markings for
illustration.
DM~ from /mdllary
600 603
~.
Vehic:le FiruCimtn:,i
- - -··-·-··- ·-··-·--·- ·-··-· -·--..... - - ---- - - -
j r--------------,01 I :
'.L _jj
Field or 1/'i.ews 701., 702=> Sizes may be reduced or
e:,i:panded based on the vehi.cl.e speed
.'£"· 6 rtg.
Rose's Figure 6 shows vehicle driver's display system 605 including
window 660 that provides one or more field of views 701, 702, and 704.
According to Rose, "the field of views delivered to the driver's
view(s) 701 and/or 702 can be adapted automatically to the speed of the
vehicle and other external conditions .... the field ofview(s) 701
and/or 702 that are displayed in the driver's display window 606 may be
automatically reduced ( or in some cases expanded) as the vehicle speed
4
Appeal2018-001884
Application 14/540,785
increases, or in response to other factors, to provide a longer range for the
perception of objects or events in the vehicle's path." Rose ,r 73.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding
Chau. Appellants even acknowledge "Rose does disclose an automatic re-
adjustment of a field of view 701/702 based on speed changes." App. Br. 8.
However, Appellants argue: (1) "Rose's field of view is defined as part of a
'driver's display window"' and, as such, is not and cannot be the same as
Appellants' claimed "virtual window" that is part of a transparent electronic
display; (2) Rose's field of view 701/702 is "a wholly non-analogous
structure" "serving a different purpose"; and (3) because Rose teaches
adjustment of a wholly non-analogous structure, "there is nothing in Rose
that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to analogize a non-transparent
display and an embedded field of view as a structure analogous to the
claimed virtual window." App. Br. 7-8. Appellants also argue the claimed
"virtual window ... is 'defined by the transparent electronic display"' (i.e., a
heads-up display (HUD) which "has a maximum planar size larger than the
size of the virtual window" whereas the size of Rose's display 606 as
rendered on driver's display 605, shown in Figure 6, is not modified. Reply
Br. 1-2.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Instead, we find the
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellant's arguments
supported by evidence. Ans. 2--4. As such, we adopt the Examiner's
findings and explanations provided therein. Id. At the outset, we note that
Appellants cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based on the combination of references. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). The test of obviousness is what the
5
Appeal2018-001884
Application 14/540,785
combined teachings would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art. Id. at 425.
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, Chau already teaches Appellants'
claimed "transparent electronic display with a virtual window" in the context
of a heads-up display (HUD) projecting a virtual image onto a vehicle's
windshield (i.e., virtual window). Chau ,r,r 2, 13, 15, 26. Rose further
teaches that image(s) on field of view(s) 701/702 on driver's display window
606, shown in Figure 6, can be adjusted or resized based on the vehicle
speed. Ans. 4. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that a skilled artisan
"would have considered the teachings of Rose to be analogous to Chau, and
would have readily recognized the benefits of applying the dynamically
resizable virtual window of Rose to Chau" in order to exploit "the best
qualities of available camera imaging technologies to enhance safety and
maneuverability." Ans. 4; Final Act. 4. With respect to a changing of the
size of the virtual window in Rose, we agree with the Examiner that Rose
teaches or suggests field of view 701 changing in size. Adv. Act. 2 (citing
Rose, Fig. 6).
Moreover, Appellant has not presented sufficient evidence or
argument that the Examiner's proffered combination of references would
have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007). Nor has Appellant provided objective evidence of
secondary considerations which our reviewing court guides "operates as a
beneficial check on hindsight." Cheese Systems, Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese
and Powder Systems, 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
6
Appeal2018-001884
Application 14/540,785
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claim 7 and its dependent claims 8-10, which Appellants do not
argue separately. App. Br. 8.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7-10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 7-10.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7