Ex Parte Byrne et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 22, 2019

13852190 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/852, 190 03/28/2013 Steven V. Byrne
153508 7590 03/26/2019
Honigman LLP/Magna
650 Trade Centre Way
Suite 200
KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402
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.
MAG04-P2046-423598 5454
EXAMINER
HANSELL JR., RICHARD A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2019 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):
patent@honigman.com
tflory@honigman.com
asytsma@honigman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN V. BYRNE and YUESHENG LU
Appeal2018-005369
Application 13/852, 190
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAMES B. ARPIN, and IRWIN E. BRANCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's final
decision rejecting claims 1-20, all of the claims pending in the application.
Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 In this Decision, we refer to Appellants' Appeal Brief, filed November 30,
2017 ("App. Br.") and Reply Brief, filed April 30, 2018 ("Reply Br."); the
Final Office Action, mailed May 30, 2017 ("Final Act."); the Examiner's
Answer, mailed March 5, 2018 ("Ans."); and the Specification, filed March
28, 2013 ("Spec."). Rather than repeat the Examiner's findings and
determinations and Appellants' contentions in their entirety, we refer to
these documents.
2 Appellants assert Magna Electronics Inc. is the real party-in-interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2018-005369
Application 13/852,190
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' recited systems and methods invention "relate[] generally
to cameras and displays and, more particularly, to a vehicle vision system."
Spec. ,r 2.
A vehicle vision or camera system performs dewarping on
captured images and outputs dewarped images separated into
three image panes. Two side image panes are shaped and
arranged with respect to a central image pane to provide the
vehicle operator with a view of outside the vehicle that is readily
comprehensible. For example, the side panes may each
comprise a parallelogram shape, with their respective upper and
lower edges being non-parallel to the upper and lower edges of
the central image pane (which may be rectangular shaped with
its upper and lower edges generally parallel and horizontal when
the image is displayed at the display). The upper and lower
edges of the side image panes may be parallel and may slope
downwardly or upwardly away from the central image pane, or
the upper and lower edges of the side image panes may taper
towards one another or diverge away from one another away
from the central image pane. When the image is displayed at the
display, each of the side image panes may be arranged with
respect to the central image pane to appear folded with respect to
the central image pane.
Id. ,r 5 ( emphasis added).
Claims 1, 10, and 14 are independent. App. Br. 39, 41--43 (Claims
App.). Claims 2-9 depend directly from claim 1, claims 11-13 depend
directly from claim 10, and claims 15-20 depend directly from claim 14. Id.
at 39--44. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
1. A vehicle vision system comprising:
a camera configured to be positioned on a vehicle;
a processing system operatively coupled to said camera,
wherein said processing system is operable to process image data
2
Appeal2018-005369
Application 13/852,190
captured by said camera, the captured image data representative
of a scene viewed by said camera;
wherein said processing system is operable to generate an
image having three individual image panes including a first
image pane derived from a first subset of image data, a second
image pane derived from a second subset of image data and a
third image pane derived from a third subset of image data;
wherein said processing system is operable to output the
image to a display for viewing by a driver of the vehicle, wherein
said display comprises a single display screen for displaying
images for viewing by the driver of the vehicle;
wherein, when the image is displayed at said single display
screen of said display, said first image pane comprises a central
image pane of the displayed image and said second image pane
is at a left side of said central pane and said third image pane is
at a right side of said central pane;
wherein, when the image is displayed at said single display
screen of said display, each of said first, second and third image
panes displayed at said single display screen has an upper edge
and a lower edge;
wherein said upper edge of said second image pane is
generally parallel to said lower edge of said second image pane,
and wherein said upper edge of said third image pane is generally
parallel to said lower edge of said third image pane, and
wherein said upper and lower edges of said second image
pane are not parallel to said upper and lower edges of said third
image pane; and
wherein said upper and lower edges of said second image
pane are not parallel to said upper and lower edges of said first
image pane and wherein said upper and lower edges of said third
image pane are not parallel to said upper and lower edges of
said first image pane.
Id. at 39 (disputed limitations emphasized).
3
Appeal2018-005369
Application 13/852,190
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references in rejecting the
pending claims:
Name Number Issued/Pub. Filed
Schofield3 US 6,498,620 B2 Dec. 24, 2002 Jun.3, 1997
Mayer US 6,690,337 B 1 Feb. 10,2004 Jun. 8,2000
Bos US 2004/0179099 Al Sep. 16,2004 Mar. 4, 2004
Chinomi US 2009/0079585 Al Mar. 26, 2009 Sep.2,2008
Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-11, 14--18, and 20 stand rejected as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Schofield and
Chinomi. Final Act. 10-17. Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Schofield, Chinomi,
and Bos. Id. at 18-19. Claims 7, 12, and 19 stand rejected as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Schofield, Chinomi,
and Mayer. Id. at 19-21.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential). Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We address the rejections below.
ANALYSIS
A. Issues
1. Does the Examiner err in finding Schofield teaches or suggests
3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
4
Appeal2018-005369
Application 13/852,190
wherein said upper edge of said second image pane is
generally parallel to said lower edge of said second image pane,
and wherein said upper edge of said third image pane is
generally parallel to said lower edge of said third image pane,
and
wherein said upper and lower edges of said second image
pane are not parallel to said upper and lower edges of said third
image pane; and wherein said upper and lower edges of said
second image pane are not parallel to said upper and lower
edges of said first image pane and wherein said upper and lower
edges of said third image pane are not parallel to said upper and
lower edges of said first image pane,
as recited in claim 1?
2. Does the Examiner err in finding Schofield teaches or suggests
wherein said upper edge of said second image pane is
generally parallel to said lower edge of said second image pane,
and wherein said upper edge of said third image pane is
generally parallel to said lower edge of said third image pane,
and wherein said upper and lower edges of said second image
pane are not parallel to said upper and lower edges of said third
image pane; and
wherein, when the image is displayed at said single display
screen of said display, each of said second and third image
panes are shaped as parallelograms and arranged with respect
to said central image pane to appear folded with respect to said
central image pane,
as recited in claim 1 O?
3. Does the Examiner err in finding Schofield teaches or suggests
wherein, when the image is displayed at the single
display screen of the display, (i) an upper edge of said second
image pane is generally parallel to a lower edge of said second
image pane and (ii) an upper edge of said third image pane is
generally parallel to a lower edge of said third image pane; and
wherein, when the image is displayed at the single
display screen of the display, (i) said upper and lower edges of
5
Appeal2018-005369
Application 13/852,190
said second image pane slope generally downwardly away from
said central image pane and (ii) said upper and lower edges of
said third image pane slope generally downwardly away from
said central image pane,
as recited in claim 14?
The Examiner finds Schofield teaches each of these limitations of
independent claims 1, 10, and 14. Final Act. 11-12 (claim 1), 16 (claim 10),
17 (claim 14). For the reasons set forth below, we are persuaded that the
Examiner has erred in these findings.
B. Independent Claims
1. Independent Claim 1
Schofield's Figure 3 is reproduced below.
Figure 3 depicts a front elevation of a display having three images 44, 46,
and 48 separated by vertical boundaries 50 and 52. Schofield, 7:48-8:21.
As depicted in Figure 3, the upper and lower edges of images 44, 46, and 48
are parallel to each other and to the edges of the adjacent images. As the
Examiner acknowledges, "[l]eft most image ( 44) of Fig. 3 in Schofield is
6
Appeal2018-005369
Application 13/852,190
shown to have top and bottom edges that are generally parallel to each
other" and "[ r ]ight most image ( 46) of Fig. 3 in Schofield is shown to have
top and bottom edges that are generally parallel to each other." Final
Act. 11 ( emphasis omitted).
Schofield's Figure 10 is reproduced below.
Figure 10 depicts image display 20" of rearview vision system 12"
having a compressed central image portion 48" and left and right
image portions 44" and 46", respectively (FIG. 10). A border 50'
between left side image 44" and central image 48" includes a
vertical central border portion 50a', an upper border portion 50b',
and a lower border portion 50c'. Upper border portion 50b' and
lower border portion 50c' diverge laterally outwardly, vertically
away from central portion 50a'. A border 52' between central
image portion 48" and right image portion 46" includes a central
boundary portion 52a', an upper boundary portion 52b', and a
lower boundary portion 52c'. Upper boundary portion 52b' and
lower boundary portion 52c' diverge laterally outwardly
vertically away from central portion 52a '. This creates an upper
portion of central image portion 48" and a lower portion of
central image portion 48" which extend beyond the center
portion thereof
Schofield, 16:37-50 (emphases added). Thus, Schofield teaches that the
shapes of the vertical boundaries between the images are modified from
those of Figure 3 in order to change the shape of the central image portion
7
Appeal2018-005369
Application 13/852,190
48". Nevertheless, referring to Schofield's Figure 10, the Examiner finds
that
the top and bottom edges of center image ( 48) are generally
shown not to be parallel to the edges of image 44 since the
lower/upper borders of image 44 diverge laterally outwardly,
vertically away from the center ... [ and this] illustrates the non-
parallel nature of the upper and lower edges of the images 44 and
46 ... for further support regarding the diverging borders of the
respective images, which is construed to contribute to the non-
parallel relationships between said images.
Final Act. 12 (emphasis omitted) (citing Schofield, 16:37-53, Fig. 10).
Figure 4 of the Specification is reproduced below.
\.
··:: ..• ; ~
. ,~::.~.
Fig-. 4
Figure 4 depicts "a dewarped image having three panes as generated by the
vehicle vision system." Spec. ,r 11. In particular, Figure 4 depicts three
panes 82, 84, and 86. Id. ,r 40. Upper pane edges 82U, 84U, and 86U are
parallel to lower pane edges 82L, 84L, and 86L, respectively. Id. ,r 42.
Further, each of panes 84 and 86 appears to be a quadrilateral, as well as a
8
Appeal2018-005369
Application 13/852,190
parallelogram. Id. ,r 40. Referring to Schofield's Figure 10, the Examiner
finds that the upper edge of image 44 11 is "generally parallel" to the lower
edge of image 44 11 despite concluding that upper border portion 50b' and
lower border portion 50c' and diverging lateral side 68a are part of the upper
and lower edges, respectively, of image 44 11 • Final Act. 12; Ans. 3--4, 6-7.
Appellants dispute the Examiner's findings and contend that
Schofield's Figure 10 does not teach the recited limitations of claim 1. For
the reasons set forth below, we agree.
Initially, we note that the Examiner relies on the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term "generally parallel" to support the rejections, but
the Examiner does not provide an express interpretation for that term. See
Final Act. 3--4, 11-12. The Examiner concludes that, despite having
portions angled away from each other, i.e., portions 50b' and 50c' (see
Schofield, 16:42-25 ("Upper border portion 50b' and lower border portion
50c' diverge laterally outwardly, vertically away from central portion
50a'. ") ), the upper and lower edges of image 44 11 are "generally parallel" to
each other. During examination, pending claims are given their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In re Prater, 415
F.2d 1393, 1404---05 (CCPA 1969); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner's interpretation of the term
"generally parallel," however, does consider the teachings of the
Specification, which show only continuous edges. See Spec., Figs. 4, 6-10;
see also id. ,r 40 ("Similarly, the right-side image pane 86 has an upper edge
86U and a lower edge 86L that are generally parallel to each other and slope
generally downwardly away from the central image pane 82." (emphasis
9
Appeal2018-005369
Application 13/852,190
added)). Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner's implicit
interpretation of this term is correct.
The Examiner concludes that, despite having portions angled away
from each other, i.e., portions along lines 50b' and 50c', the upper and lower
edges of image 44 11 , including these portions, are "generally parallel" to each
other. Because the portions along lines 50b' and 50c' clearly are angled
away from each other, the Examiner appears to rely on the horizontal
portions of the purported upper and lower edges of image 44 11 to support the
conclusion that the edges are "generally parallel." See App. Br. 21.
However, the Examiner also concludes that, despite having complementary
angled portions along lines 50b' and 50c', the upper and lower edges of
images 44 11 and 46 11 are not parallel. Ans. 5. Thus, the Examiner appears to
rely on the lateral borders 50' and 52' to be the left and right edges of central
image 46 11 in order to satisfy one limitation of claim 1, but to be part of the
upper and lower edges of images 44 11 and 48 11 to satisfy another limitation of
claim 1. App. Br. 20-22; Reply Br. 4--5. We agree with Appellants that the
Examiner's treatment of the cited disclosures of Schofield is inconsistent
and, thus, is relied upon improperly to teach the disputed claim limitations.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants have shown error in the
Examiner's factual findings and conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent
claim 1, or the claims dependent therefrom.
2. Independent Claim 10
Independent claim 10 shares the limitation of independent claim 1
reciting that "said upper edge of said second image pane is generally parallel
to said lower edge of said second image pane, and wherein said upper edge
10
Appeal2018-005369
Application 13/852,190
of said third image pane is generally parallel to said lower edge of said third
image pane." App. Br. 41--42 (Claims App.). Because the Examiner relies
on Schofield's Figure 10 also to teach this limitation of claim 10 (Ans. 16),
for the reasons given above, Appellants have shown error in the Examiner's
factual findings and conclusion of obviousness with regard to claim 10.
Moreover, we note that claim 10 recites that "each of said second and
third image panes are shaped as parallelograms and arranged with respect
to said central image pane to appear folded with respect to said central
image pane." App. Br. 42 (emphases added); see Spec. ,r 5, Figs. 4, 9, 10
( depicting panes shaped as parallelograms); cf Spec. Figs. 6-10 ( depicting
quadrilateral panes). At least a portion of this limitation of claim 10 is
similar to that recited in claim 4, which stands rejected on the same ground
as claim 10.
As Appellants note, Schofield's Figure 10 does not depict that images
44" and 48" "are shaped as parallelograms," i.e., a shape having parallel left
and right edges and parallel upper and lower edges. Images 44" and 48" are
five-sided and do not depict parallelograms. Further, given the contours of
lateral borders 50' and 52', images 44" and 48" also do not "appear folded
with respect to" central image 46". App. Br. 28-29. As Appellants note
with respect to claim 4, "[t]o provide the claimed folded appearance of the
second and third (left and right) panes relative to the central pane, lines that
divide these image panes would be linear so as to appear folded, since
typically an item is not folded along a non-linear seam." Id. at 27. Lateral
borders 50' and 52' of Schofield's Figure 10 are not linear, i.e., straight, so as
to appear folded. See Final Act. 14 (alleging that Schofield's Figure 10
shows a folded or curved appearance). For this additional reason, we agree
11
Appeal2018-005369
Application 13/852,190
with Appellants that the Examiner has not demonstrated that Schofield
teaches or suggests this limitation of claim 10.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants have shown error in the
Examiner's factual findings and conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent
claim 10, or the claims dependent therefrom.
3. Independent Claim 14
Independent claim 14 shares the limitation of independent claim 1
reciting that "wherein, when the image is displayed at the single display
screen of the display, (i) an upper edge of said second image pane is
generally parallel to a lower edge of said second image pane and (ii) an
upper edge of said third image pane is generally parallel to a lower edge of
said third image pane." App. Br. 43 (Claims App.). Because the Examiner
relies on Schofield's Figure 10 also to teach this limitation of claim 14
(Ans. 16), for the reasons given above, Appellants have shown error in the
Examiner's factual findings and conclusion of obviousness with regard to
claim 14.
Moreover, we note that claim 14 recites that "(i) said upper and lower
edges of said second image pane slope generally downwardly away from
said central image pane and (ii) said upper and lower edges of said third
image pane slope generally downwardly away from said central image
pane." App. Br. 43 (emphases added); see Spec. ,r 5, Figs. 8, 10. This
limitation of claim 14 is similar to that recited in claim 2, which stands
rejected on the same ground as claim 14. As Appellants note, Schofield's
Figure 10 does not depict that images 44" and 48" have upper and lower
edges that slope generally downwardly away from image 46". App. Br. 25-
12
Appeal2018-005369
Application 13/852,190
26 ( discussing claim 2), 29 (referring to discussion of claims 1 and 2).
Referring to Schofield's Figure 10, Appellants contend instead that "the
border portions 50B' and 52B' clearly slope upward away from the center
image [46"]." Id. at 26. We agree and find the Examiner's arguments to the
contrary unpersuasive. Final Act. 13-14. For this additional reason, we
agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not demonstrated that Schofield
teaches or suggests this limitation of claim 14.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants have shown error in the
Examiner's factual findings and conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent
claim 14, or the claims dependent therefrom.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants have shown error in the
Examiner's factual findings and conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of independent
claims 1, 10, or 14, or the claims dependent therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
REVERSED
13