Ex Parte Nachtegall et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2017

13779044 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2017)

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.
13/779,044 02/27/2013 Debbie E. Nachtegall P022853-GMVE-CD 8301
80748 7590 11/01/2017
Cantor Colburn LLP-General Motors
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
JIANG, ZAIHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2017 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEBBIE E. NACHTEGALL, ERIC L. RAPHAEL, and
FRANK J. JOBAK
Appeal 2017-003922
Application 13/779,044
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—14. App. Br. 10.2 Claim 4 has been canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as GM Global Technology
Operations LLC. App. Br. 2.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection (“Final Act.”)
mailed December 3, 2015, (2) the Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.”) mailed
March 2, 2016, (3) the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed April 29, 2016, (4)
the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed November 4, 2016, and (5) the
Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed January 4, 2017.
Appeal 2017-003922
Application 13/779,044
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is a driver-monitoring camera system with a
low profile. Spec. 11. According to the Specification, a vehicle’s driver­
monitoring system captures a driver’s image and delivers the image to
facial-recognition software. Id. 12. The system’s optics, however, can
obscure a vehicle’s instrument panel. Id. To avoid obstructing the panel,
Appellants’ driver-monitoring camera system is within the steering column.
Id. 113.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with our emphasis:
1. A driver monitoring camera system for a vehicle, the system
comprising:
a camera system comprising an exit field of view central
axis oriented more vertical than horizontal with respect to a set
of orthogonal x, y and z axes, the z-axis defining a direction line
indicative of a vertical direction, the x and y axes defining
direction lines indicative of horizontal directions, the camera
system comprising a camera; and
an optical beam shaper disposed in optical communication
with the camera system and optically between the camera system
and an operator of the vehicle, the optical beam shaper being
structurally configured to direct an image of a face of an operator
of the vehicle toward the exit field of view of the camera system,
the optical beam shaper being structurally configured to
compress the image in the vertical direction to define a
compressed image having a height to width aspect ratio of less
than an uncompressed height to width aspect ratio of the image;
wherein the vehicle comprises a steering wheel operably
connected with a steering column, and further wherein the
camera system is disposed at least partially within the steering
column.
2
Appeal 2017-003922
Application 13/779,044
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Hillmann et al.
Johns et al.
Seto et al.
Lathrop et al.
US 6,658,140 B1
US 2010/0134761 Al
US 2011/0317015 Al
US 2014/0148988 Al
Dec. 2, 2003
June 3, 2010
Dec. 29, 2011
May 29, 2014
In the Final Rejection, the Examiner rejected independent claims 1
and 14 over Seto and Hillman and rejected dependent claim 4 over Seto,
Hillman, and Lathrop. Final Act. 4—6, 9—10. After the Final Rejection,
Appellants amended claims 1 and 14 to incorporate claim 4’s limitations.
See After-Final Submission filed January 29, 2016. The Examiner entered
the amendment and explained that claim 1 would be rejected in view of
Seto, Hillman, and Lathrop. Adv. Act. 2. Although the Examiner states in
the first section of the Answer that claim 1 is rejected under Seto and
Hillman (Ans. 2), the Examiner’s comments indicate that the amended
claims 1 and 14 are rejected over Seto, Hillmann and Lathrop (see id. at 10—
11). Therefore, for the purpose of this appeal, we treat the reviewable
grounds for rejection as follows:
Claims 1—12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Seto, Hillmann, and Lathrop. See Final Act. 4—12; Adv.
Act. 2—3.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Seto, Hillmann, Lathrop, and Johns. Final Act. 12—13.
3
Appeal 2017-003922
Application 13/779,044
THE REJECTION OVER SETO, HILLMANN AND LATHROP
The Examiner’s Findings
The Examiner finds that Seto teaches every limitation recited in
independent claim 1 except for (1) the optical beam shaper to compress the
image and (2) a camera system in the steering column. Final Act. 4—6;
Adv. Act. 2. In concluding that claim 1 would have been obvious, the
Examiner cites Hillman as teaching the optical beam shaper and Lathrop as
teaching the camera system in the steering column. Final Act. 6;
Adv. Act. 2. In particular, the Examiner finds that Lathrop teaches a
camera-based optical sensor in the steering wheel. Adv. Act. 2 (citing
Lathrop 131). In the Examiner’s view, the steering wheel is part of the
steering column, and thus, the recited steering column encompasses the
steering wheel. Ans. 11. The Examiner cites extrinsic evidence in support
of this interpretation. Id. The Examiner further finds that components of
Lathrop’s camera system in the steering wheel must at least pass through the
steering column. Id. at 11—12.
Appellants ’ Contentions
Appellants argue that Lathrop’s camera-based sensor is not in the
steering column. App. Br. 7. According to Appellants, the Examiner’s
interpretation of the recited steering column is unreasonable because the
recited steering wheel and steering column are two separate elements.
Reply Br. 2.
Issue
Appellants’ arguments for independent claim 1 (see App. Br. 7;
Reply Br. 2—3) present us with the following issue:
4
Appeal 2017-003922
Application 13/779,044
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 1 by finding that Lathrop would have taught
or suggested a vehicle comprising a steering wheel operably
connected with a steering column, and further wherein the
camera system is disposed at least partially within the steering
column?
Analysis
We agree that the Examiner has erred. First, the Examiner’s
interpretation of the recited steering column is not consistent with the
Specification and the claim’s plain language. See Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 11.
Second, the Examiner has not shown that Lathrop teaches or suggests a
camera in a steering wheel, let alone a steering column. We discuss these
two issues below.
We first consider the Examiner’s interpretation of “steering column.”
“[Cjlaims in an application are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, [ ] and that 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 Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548
(Fed.Cir.1983). Here, the Specification discloses that a “steering column” is
separate from and connected to a steering wheel. Spec. 113. For instance,
Appellants label the steering column with the reference number 102 and
provide a separate label (110) for the steering wheel. See id.', see also Fig. 2.
Figure 2 shows that steering wheel 110 is connected to the steering column
102 via shaft 112. Spec. 113. Therefore, the Examiner’s interpretation is
not consistent with any embodiment in the Specification.
5
Appeal 2017-003922
Application 13/779,044
We now turn to the plain language of claim 1. The claim recites, in
part, “a steering wheel operably connected with a steering column”
(emphasis added). That is, the wheel and column are recited as separate
features related by a connection. The Examiner’s construction would render
the recited connection meaningless. See Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 11. But “[a]
claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is
preferred over one that does not do so.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharms.
USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Circ. 2005). Considering the
Specification and the plain language of the claims, the record here favors
Appellants’ position that claim l’s steering column should be interpreted as
separate from but connected to a steering wheel. See App. Br. 7;
Reply Br. 2—3. For this reason, we find the Examiner has erred in finding
that Fathrop’s steering wheel falls within the scope of the recited steering
column.
Furthermore, it is not apparent from the relied upon passage that
Fathrop teaches a camera in the steering wheel. In particular the Examiner
cites paragraph 31 from Fathrop as teaching this feature. See Adv. Act. 2;
Ans. 11. The relevant passage reads as follows:
For example, detection of the hand(s) on the steering wheel can
be performed with a pressure sensor, resistive sensor, acoustic
wave sensor, camera-based optical sensor, reflective IR sensor,
thermal sensor integrated into steering wheel, camera-based
thermal sensor, or beam (light or sound)-interruption sensor.
Fathrop 131 (emphasis added). Based on Fathrop’s placement of the
conjunction “or” in this sentence, the phrase “into steering wheel” only
modifies “thermal sensor,” not the camera-based sensors. In other words,
Fathrop detects a driver’s hands on a steering wheel using several sensors.
Id. One of those sensors is a thermal sensor integrated into the steering
6
Appeal 2017-003922
Application 13/779,044
wheel. Id. Other sensors include a camera-based optical sensor and a
camera-based thermal sensor. Id.
The Examiner provides no support for the finding that Lathrop places
these camera-based sensors in the steering wheel. See Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 11.
On the contrary, Lathrop recommends placing camera-based sensors in the
front-window sun visor to monitor the driver’s hands. Lathrop 132. On this
record, we are persuaded that the Examiner has not shown that Lathrop’s
camera system, even partly, requires a connection from the steering wheel
through the steering column, including disposing its camera system at least
partially within the steering column as recited. See Ans. 11—12.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of (1)
independent claim 1, (2) independent claim 14, which also recites a camera
system in the steering column, or (3) dependent claims 2—12, for similar
reasons.
THE REJECTION OVER SETO, HILLMANN, LATHROP, AND JOHNS
The Examiner rejects claims 13 as being obvious over Seto, Hillmann,
Lathrop, and the additional reference Johns. Final Act. 12—13. Because
Johns is not relied upon to teach the steering column, Johns does not cure the
deficiency discussed above. See id. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 for the same reasons discussed above in
connection with claim 1.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—14.
REVERSED
7