Ex Parte FürsichDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 30, 201814489659 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/489,659 09/18/2014 153508 7590 08/01/2018 Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP/Magna 650 Trade Centre Way Suite 200 KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA Manfred Flirsich 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-P2374-423779 6337 EXAMINER ANYIKIRE, CHIKAODILI E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2487 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2018 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 ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MANFRED FURSICH 1 Appeal2018-001950 Application 14/489,659 Technology Center 2400 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse and enter a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b). 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Magna Electronics, Inc. (see App. Br. 2). Appeal 2018-001950 Application 14/489,659 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention is directed to "vehicle vision system[s] with [a] virtual retinal display" that "display[] images at a virtual distance from the [vehicle's] driver," and "display images derived from image data captured by ... at least one camera" "disposed at [the] vehicle and having a field of view exterior of the vehicle" (Title ( capitalization altered); Abstract). Claims 1, 15, and 18 are independent. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A vision system of a vehicle, said vision system compnsmg: at least one camera disposed at a vehicle and having a field of view exterior of the vehicle; wherein said at least one camera is operable to capture image data; a display disposed in the vehicle and viewable by a driver of the vehicle, wherein said display is operable to display images derived from image data captured by said at least one camera; wherein said display comprises a virtual retinal display that displays images at a virtual distance from the driver; and wherein, when viewing images displayed by said virtual retinal display, the driver has the impression that the virtual distance from the driver's eyes to the displayed images is greater than the distance from the driver's eyes to said virtual retinal display. REJECTION and REFERENCE The Examiner rejected claims 1-20under35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l)as anticipated by Yamamoto (US 2010/0097580 Al; published Apr. 22, 2010). 2 Appeal 2018-001950 Application 14/489,659 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Yamamoto teaches a virtual retinal display operable to display images derived from image data captured by a camera disposed at a vehicle and having a field of view exterior of the vehicle, as required by independent claims 1, 15, and 18 (Ans. 6-7; Final Act. 2--4 ). Particularly, the Examiner finds Yamamoto teaches a virtual retinal display (deflecting unit 104) with "characteristics of reflecting a beam and characteristics of transmitting visible light from outside the vehicle, which allow the fil!:!: to view the display according to [Yamamoto' s] invention while seeing the views outside the vehicle" (Final Act. 2, 4 (citing Yamamoto,r,r2, 348-352)). TheExaminerthenfmds Yamamoto's virtual retinal display displays images derived from image data captured by "a camera disposed at a vehicle and having a field of view exterior of the vehicle" as claimed, because Yamamoto' s retinal display displays, to a driver, "views from outside of the vehicle" that are captured by cameras (Ans. 6-7 (citing Yamamoto,r 348, Fig. 21)). Wedo not agree. We agree with Appellant's arguments that Yamamoto does not specifically disclose "a camera disposed at a vehicle and having a field of view exterior of the vehicle," and a virtual retinal display "operable to show images derived from image data captured by the camera," as claimed (Reply Br. 3). Rather, Yamamoto discloses a virtual retinal display (Head-up Display, or HUD) displays images with "information related to, for example, driving actions and a current location, such as a vehicle speed, a caution and alert, and navigation guidance" (Reply Br. 3 ( citing Yamamoto ,r 348); App. Br. 14). Additionally, Yamamoto does not teach that displayed "information such as location, speed, alerts and navigation guidance" is derived from "a 3 Appeal 2018-001950 Application 14/489,659 camera ... having a field of view exterior of the vehicle" as claimed (Reply Br. 3 ). The only camera disclosed by Yamamoto is a camera viewing the vehicle's interior "for tracking a user's [ driver's] head and eyes in order to properly display the retinal image" on the driver's retinas (App. Br. 12 ( citing Yamamoto ,r 352)). With regard to Yamamoto' s "views outside the vehicle," these views are not displayed by Yamamoto's virtual retinal display (App. Br. 11-12). Rather, views from outside the vehicle are seen by the driver "using his or her eyes, through the windshield'' and through Yamamoto's retinal display-which is "a see-through display" that "transmits visible light from outside the vehicle so the user [driver] can view the display while also viewing outside the vehicle" (Reply Br. 2-3 ( citing Yamamoto ,r,r 53, 210, 348-349); App. Br. 12). In other words, Yamamoto's virtual retinal display "allows the user to view through the [ retinal] display and through the windshield and windows, so as to be able to view outside the vehicle, while also allowing the user to simultaneously view vehicle speed and other information via the retinal display" (App. Br. 11). The Examiner has not shown, nor have we found, Yamamoto discloses a virtual retinal display operable to display images derived from image data captured by a camera having a fl eld of view exterior of the vehicle as recited in claim 1 and similarly in claims 15 and 18. Therefore, because the identical invention is not "shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim" (Richardsonv. Suzuki Motor Co., 868F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citation omitted)), we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1, 15, and 18, and claims 2-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 dependent therefrom. We do not address Appellant's remaining 4 Appeal 2018-001950 Application 14/489,659 arguments with respectto claims 2-5, 7, 10, and 15-18 as the issues discussed supra are dispositive of all the claims. NEW GROUND OF REJECTION Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a new ground of rejection for independent claim 1. Particularly, we reject independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Yamamoto. As noted above, Yamamoto's disclosure does not rise to the level of anticipation. However, we fmd it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan that Yamamoto' s virtually displayed "information related to ... driving actions ... such as ... a caution and alert, and navigation guidance" (see Yamamoto ,r 348) could include images derived from image data captured by a vehicle camera having afield of view exterior of the vehicle, as claimed. Initially, we note Yamamoto discloses a "vision system of a vehicle" (a HUD for vehicles) including a "virtual retinal display" (including a light source 101, wavefront shape change unit 102, scan unit 103, and deflection unit 104) "disposed in the vehicle and viewable by a driver of the vehicle" as recited in claim 1 (see Yamamoto ,r,r 2, 346-348 (HUD of Embodiment 6, and head-mounted display/HMD of Embodiment 1 ), Fig. 21 ). Yamamoto further teaches the "virtual retinal display ... displays images at a virtual distance from the driver" as claimed (see Yamamoto ,r,r 2 ("virtual retinal display" for "directly drawing images on the retinas of the user's eyes by two-dimensionally scanning laser beams"), 196 (Embodiment 1 's virtual retinal display "display[s] an image on the retinas of the user's eyes")). As in claim 1, Yamamoto's driver, "when viewing images displayed by said virtual retinal display, ... has the impression that the 5 Appeal 2018-001950 Application 14/489,659 virtual distance from the driver's eyes to the displayed images is greater than the distance from the driver's eyes to said virtual retinal display" (see Yamamoto ,r,r 32 ("With HMDs, the distance between the user's eye and the deflection mirror is usually 1 to 5 centimeters approximately," while "the distance between the user's eye and the virtual screen [the distance between the user's eye and the virtual position of a displayed object] is between a few meters and infmity"), 69, 71 ). Yamamoto' s virtual retinal display is operable to display images including "information related to, for example, driving actions and a current location, such as a vehicle speed, a caution and alert, and navigation guidance" (see Yamamoto ,r 348 ( emphasis added)). Additionally, a skilled artisan would recognize vehicles may include cameras having a fl eld of view exterior of the vehicle (e.g., lane change assist and parking cameras), for visually alerting the driver of nearby obstacles. 2 Thus, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan that Yamamoto' s "caution and alert" displayed by the virtual retinal display 2 Lane change assist and parking cameras with a field of view exterior of the vehicle, for visually alerting the driver of nearby obstacles, are well known to one skilled in the art, as evidenced by, e.g., US 2012/0281093 Al (published Nov. 8, 2012) to Fong et al. (see Fong,r,r 28-32, Figs. 1-2). For example, Fong discloses "a plurality of image capturing devices 98," such as "four to six video cameras 98," are "mounted to the vehicle to capture images of the external environment of the vehicle," an "image processing module identifies potential hazards in real-time from the captured images," and then"[ v ]isual ... alerts are generated" and "displayed to alert the driver" (Fong,r,r 28-29). Visual alerts may include "[a] flashing red circle 12 [that] highlights any incoming vehicle ... to alert the driver," and arrows and triangles indicating "potential hazards" close to the rear end of the parking vehicle (Fong ,r,r 31-32, Figs. 1-2). 6 Appeal 2018-001950 Application 14/489,659 could be "derived from image data captured by . .. at least one camera" having "afield of view exterior of the vehicle" as claimed (see Yamamoto ,r 348). 3 For these reasons, we fmd independent claim 1 obvious over Yamamoto. With regard to the other independent claims 15 and 18, and dependent claims 2-14, 16, 17, 19, and20, wenotethattheBoardis primarily a reviewing body, rather than a place of initial examination. We, therefore, leave it to the Examiner to analyze the patentability of claims 2-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See MPEP § 1213.02. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Yamamoto is reversed. We enteraNEWGROUNDOFREJECTIONforclaim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 pursuantto our authorityunder37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). TIME PERIOD This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: 3 We additionally note Appellant's claim 1 only requires the virtual retinal display to display "images derived from image data captured by said at least one camera," and does not require the virtual retinal display to display "images from a camera" as Appellant argues (see Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added)). 7 Appeal 2018-001950 Application 14/489,659 ( 1) Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the exammer .... (2) Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record .... 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)(2012). REVERSED 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b) 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation