Ex Parte Fürsich

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2018

14489659 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

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