Ex Parte Pflug et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 26, 2019

14372524 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/372,524 07/16/2014 Goerg Pflug
153508 7590 02/28/2019
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 P-1997-423569 1881
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, KATHLEENV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2019 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 GOERG PFLUG, ACHIM GIESEKE,
BERNHARD THALER, CHRISTIAN TRAUB,
JOHANNES WOLF, JOERN IHLENBURG, and
MARTIN RACHOR
Appeal2018-005432
Application 14/372,524 1
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1--4, 6, and 8-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants' Brief ("App. Br.") identifies Magna Electronics Inc. as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-005432
Application 14/372,524
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a vehicle vision system "that utilizes one or
more cameras to capture images exterior of the vehicle, and provides the
communication/data signals, including camera data or image data that may
be displayed or processed to provide the desired display images and/or
processing and control" with a positionable virtual viewpoint. Spec. ,r 4.
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitation in italics, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A vehicle vision system comprising:
a plurality of cameras disposed at a vehicle equipped with
said vision system and having respective exterior fields of view,
said plurality of cameras comprising a forward viewing camera
at a front portion of the equipped vehicle, a rearward viewing
camera at a rear portion of the equipped vehicle, a driver side
sideward viewing camera at a driver side of the equipped vehicle
and a passenger side sideward viewing camera at a passenger
side of the equipped vehicle;
a display screen for displaying images derived from image
data captured by said cameras in a surround view format where
captured image data is merged to provide a single composite
display image representative of a view from a virtual viewing
position; a control operable to adjust (i) the virtual viewing
position for the displayed composite image and (ii) a virtual
viewing angle of the displayed composite image from the virtual
viewing position;
a gesture sensing device operable to sense a gesture made
by a driver of the equipped vehicle;
wherein said control is responsive to sensing by said
gesture sensing device of a gesture made by the driver, and
wherein, responsive at least in part to a determined gesture made
by the driver, said control adjusts at least one of (i) the virtual
viewing position for the displayed composite image and (ii) the
virtual viewing angle of the displayed composite image from the
virtual viewing position; and
2
Appeal2018-005432
Application 14/372,524
wherein said control calculates the virtual view position
and the virtual viewing angle in real time without use of
precalculated mapping tables.
App. Br. 28 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Pryor
Larsen
Dellantoni
US 2009/0273563 Al Nov. 5, 2009
US 2011/0090149 Al Apr. 21, 2011
WO 2010/144900 Al Dec. 16, 2010
REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4, 6, and 8-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Dellantoni, Prior, and Larsen. Final Act. 8-34.
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Dellantoni, Pryor, and Larsen teaches or suggests a vehicle vision system
having a control which adjusts both "the virtual viewing position for the
displayed composite image" and "a virtual viewing angle of the displayed
composite image from the virtual viewing position," as recited in claim 1?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in combining Pryor and
Dellantoni?
Third Issue: Has the Examiner erred in determining that Larsen is
analogous art to the claimed invention?
Fourth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combined
teachings of the cited references teach or suggest "wherein said control is
3
Appeal2018-005432
Application 14/372,524
operable to adjust the displayed images responsive to detection of one or
more fingers of the hand of the driver touching and moving at a touch screen
of said gesture sensing device," as recited in claim 9?
Fifth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combined
teachings of the cited references teach or suggest "highlight[ing] displayed
images of one or more hazards detected in the field of view of at least one of
said cameras," as recited in claim 11?
Sixth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combined
teachings of the cited references teach or suggest "adjust[ing] a virtual
viewing location of the displayed image," as recited in claim 12?
Seventh Issue: Has the Examiner erred in concluding claim 21 would
have been obvious based on the combined teachings of the cited references?
ANALYSIS
First Issue
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as being obvious over
Dellantoni, Pryor, and Larsen. In so doing, the Examiner finds that
Dellantoni teaches a vehicle vision system that includes a plurality of
cameras and "display[ s] a single composite display image representative of a
view from a virtual viewing position." Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that
Dellantoni does not teach gesture-driven control of the position and angle of
the displayed image. Ans. 3. The Examiner relies on Pryor, finding that it
teaches a vehicle control system which uses a camera-based tracker to detect
hand gestures which change the viewing position and viewing angle of an
image, but not a virtual viewing position and angle of a composite image as
recited in the claim. Ans. 3--4 ( citing Pryor ,r,r 267, 343, 344, 347, 402, and
4
Appeal2018-005432
Application 14/372,524
Fig. 7). The Examiner finds that Larsen teaches it was known to adjust at
least one of a virtual viewing position and virtual viewing angle of a
displayed composite image in response to movement of a control object such
as a user's head. Ans. 4.
Appellants argue the cited references, even if properly combined, fail
to teach a control which adjusts "(i) the virtual viewing position for the
displayed composite image and (ii) a virtual viewing angle of the displayed
composite image from the virtual viewing position." App. Br. 12-15; Reply
Br. 2--4. Specifically, Appellants argue Pryor does not "disclose or suggest
virtual viewing positions or angles or moving such virtual moving positions
or virtual viewing angles" because "Pryor merely describes changing the
portions of the camera view displayed on the screen." Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellants further argue that Larsen does not cure the deficiencies in Pryor
and Dellantoni because "Larsen merely discloses tracking a user's face to
translate the movement into a video game." Reply Br. 3. Acknowledging
that "the view within a game is a virtual point of view," Appellants assert "it
is not a virtual point of view created from captured image data merged to
provide a composite display as claimed." Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because they do not
address the rejection actually made by the Examiner. For example,
Appellants attack Pryor and Larsen for lacking any teaching of a composite
image. The Examiner relies on Dellantoni, however, as teaching the use
cameras to create a composite image of the exterior of the vehicle. Ans. 3.
The Examiner relies on Pryor to show that it was known in the art to control
the views provided by external cameras via gesturing. Ans. 3--4; Pryor
,r 343 ("[C]amera inputs ... as to the rotational position of a head such as
5
Appeal2018-005432
Application 14/372,524
710, can cue the appropriate screen display to moves as head moves-not
just for viewpoint changes, but to help the person view the display.") We
agree with the Examiner that, taken together, Dellantoni and Pryor teach or
at least suggest using gestures to control or adjust the displayed composite
image as taught by Dellantoni.
Appellants also argue that Pryor does not teach adjusting a virtual
viewing position or a virtual viewing angle. App. Br. 13. However, the
Examiner does not rely on Pryor for a virtual viewing position or virtual
viewing angle. Rather, the Examiner relies on Larsen for this limitation.
Ans. 4. We agree with the Examiner that Larsen demonstrates that it was
known in the art to adjust a virtual viewing position and a virtual viewing
angle based on a gesture such as a head movement. Specifically, Larsen
teaches the use of "an interface that enables controlling a virtual camera
through a user's head motion in order to adjust the view being presented."
Larsen ,r 3 (italics added). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in finding the combination of Dellantoni, Pryor, and Larsen teach or
suggest the argued limitations of claim 1 or those of independent claims 13
and 18 for which Appellants present similar arguments. App. Br. 21-22
(arguing claim 13), 25 ("[Prior art] does not disclose or suggest the
combination of features defined in independent claim 1 ( and similarly
independent claims 13 and 18). ").
Second Issue
Appellants also contest the combination of Dellantoni and Pryor.
App. Br. 15. In setting forth her rationale for combining Dellantoni and
Pryor, the Examiner finds that Pryor teaches a safety benefit can be achieved
through the use of a control panel that requires little concentration or visual
6
Appeal2018-005432
Application 14/372,524
engagement. Ans. 5 ( citing Pryor ,r,r 4, 56). The Examiner concludes it
would have been obvious to incorporate Pryor' s interior camera as a gesture
sensing device to control the Dellantoni' s vehicle vision system because
doing so would provide for safer operation of the vehicle. Final Act. 11.
Appellants argue the rationale is insufficient because the cited
portions of Pryor describe safe operation provided by a dashboard design
and voice-activated systems. According to Appellants, "[p ]roviding a safe
dash without protruding devices and providing voice activated systems is
hardly a rational reason for combining the prior art in the manner asserted by
the Examiner." App. Br. 15-16.
This argument is not persuasive of Examiner error. Pryor recognizes
the benefit of driver safety that can be achieved using gesture-driven
commands. Pryor ,r,r 54 ("[ u ]ndue concentration ... can also cause unsafe
driving"), 55 ("With the instant invention ... key functions can all be
implemented with little or no voice input/output by the driver at all. And
more than one function can be done at once, using ... head movements and
a variety of alternative input mechanisms."). We agree with the Examiner
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
safety of using the camera system of Dellantoni could be improved by
providing it with the ability to be adjusted via gestures by the driver, such as
head movements, as taught by Pryor. Final Act. 11. Accordingly, we are
not persuaded the Examiner has provided an insufficient rationale for
combining Dellantoni and Pryor.
Third Issue
Appellants also challenge the Examiner's reliance on Larsen.
Appellants contend that Larsen is non-analogous art because it is directed to
7
Appeal2018-005432
Application 14/372,524
an interactive entertainment application that is not in the same field of
endeavor as the claimed invention and is not pertinent to the problem faced
by the inventor. App. Br. 16-17. The Examiner finds Larsen is in the same
field of endeavor because it and the claimed invention are directed to
processing and displaying image data. Ans. 6. We agree with the Examiner
that Larsen is analogous art. In particular, we agree with the Examiner that
both Larsen and the claimed invention are directed to processing and display
of image data. Although the claimed invention applies its image processing
and display concepts in a vehicle and Larsen does so in an interactive
gaming environment, in both cases the underlying technology is focused on
the processing and display of virtual image data. We further note that
Appellants' Specification acknowledges the relevance of video game display
technology, explaining that the invention draws from parallax mapping that
is often used "in 3D rendering applications such as video games."
Spec. ,r 65. Accordingly, we agree with Examiner that Larsen is in the same
field of endeavor (processing and display of virtual image data) and is
reasonably pertinent to a problem faced by the inventors (adjusting a point
of view). Thus, Larsen is analogous art to Appellants' invention, and we
find the Examiner has provided an adequate rationale for its combination
with Dellantoni and Pryor.
Fourth Issue
Claim 9, which depends from claim 1, recites the limitation "wherein
said control is operable to adjust the displayed images responsive to
detection of one or more fingers of a hand of the driver touching and moving
at a touch screen of said gesture sensing device." App. Br. 29 (Claims
Appendix). In rejecting claim 9, the Examiner finds that Pryor's teaches the
8
Appeal2018-005432
Application 14/372,524
recited limitation because it teaches that "hand gesture of a driver can be
sensed by a touch screen and used to adjust information displayed on the
screen of a vehicle." Ans. 7 (citing Pryor ,r,r 227-228 and Figs. 3b-3d).
Appellants argue the cited portions of Pryor are inapposite because
"Pryor is disclosing such an input in order to allow the driver to operate
simple controls of the vehicle . . . . [T]his is not disclosing a control
operable to adjust the displayed images as claimed." App. Br. 19.
According to Appellants, Pryor teaches away from manipulating displayed
images because it seeks to reduce drive distraction. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. The cited portion of
Pryor demonstrates that it was known in the art to use touchscreen gesture
input to manipulate images and to control aspects of vehicle operations.
Pryor ,r,r 227-228. The Examiner does not rely exclusively on Pryor for the
limitation of claim 9. Rather, she concludes that it would have been obvious
to use Pryor's touchscreen to control the display of the composite image as
taught by Dellantoni. We find this conclusion well-supported, and
Appellants' arguments attacking Pryor singly without addressing the
combined teachings of the references are unpersuasive. Consequently, we
sustain the rejection of claim 9.
Fifth Issue
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and recites the limitation "wherein ...
said vision system is operable to highlight displayed images of one or more
hazards detected in the field of view of at least one of said cameras." App.
Br. 30 (Claims Appendix). In rejecting claim 11, the Examiner relies on
both Dellantoni and Pryor. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Dellantoni
teaches a video image of an approached building captured by a forward
9
Appeal2018-005432
Application 14/372,524
facing camera can be highlighted to draw the driver's attention to what is
being approached. Final Act. 24 (citing Dellantoni ,r 41 and Fig. 23). The
Examiner further finds that Pryor teaches informing drivers of hazardous
conditions. Final Act. 25 ( citing Pryor ,r,r 83, 205).
Appellants argue "[t]he cited portions of Dellantoni merely disclose
using a GPS and 'tour guide application' to highlight/annotate 'historical
buildings' and the like." App. Br. 20. Appellants also argue Pryor is
deficient because it "simply discloses that a goal of the invention is to
provide a 'means to inform drivers of hazardous conditions' without any
further detail." Id. According to Appellants, Dellantoni and Pryor, "such as
at the cited paragraphs, fail to disclose, suggest, or render obvious
highlighting displayed images of one or more hazards detected in the field of
view of a camera, as claimed." Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. As noted by the
Examiner, Dellantoni teaches highlighting displayed images of buildings
detected in the field of view of a forward facing camera. Dellantoni ,r 41.
We agree with the Examiner that this description in Dellantoni at least
suggests "highlight[ing] displayed images of one or more hazards detected
in the field of view of at least one of said cameras" because a building in the
path of a vehicle is a collision hazard to be avoided. See Ans. 8. Moreover,
we also find the Examiner's citation to Pryor further supports the conclusion
of obviousness because Pryor teaches that it is beneficial to inform drivers of
hazardous conditions. Final Act. 25 ( citing Pryor ,r,r 83, 205). This
disclosure in Pryor suggests utilizing Dellantoni's object detection ability to
inform the driver of hazardous conditions. We also note that Dellantoni
further describes using the camera for a lane departure warning system
10
Appeal2018-005432
Application 14/372,524
(LDW) and also for detecting and showing nearby vehicles or object when
parallel parking, which also informs a driver of a detected hazard.
Dellantoni ,r,r 50-53. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
in concluding claim 11 is obvious over the cited references.
Sixth Issue
Claim 12, which depends from claim 1, recites "responsive to a
determination of a head movement made by the driver of the equipped
vehicle, said control is operable to adjust a virtual viewing location of the
displayed image." App. Br. 30 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner rejects
claim 12, citing the same portions of Pryor and Larsen as relied upon in
rejecting claim 1. Appellants present similar arguments for claim 12 as
claim 1. App. Br. 21 ("As discussed above, the cited portions of Pryor
merely disclose a camera with a wider field of view than is shown at one
time ... [ and] does not disclose or suggest adjusting a virtual viewing
location."). For the same reasons we discussed supra in connection with
claim 1, we do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive of Examiner error
with respect to claim 12.
Seventh Issue
Claim 21, which depends from claim 18, recites "wherein, responsive
to a determination of a head movement made by the driver of the equipped
vehicle that is indicative of the driver looking upward or downward, said
control is operable to vertically adjust the virtual viewing location of the
displayed image." App. Br. 33 (Claims Appendix). In rejecting claim 21,
the Examiner finds that Larsen teaches "that the user's head moving up and
down is tracked to cause the displayed data view frustum to provide a
different viewpoint which can be vertically different." Ans. 9 (citing Larsen
11
Appeal2018-005432
Application 14/372,524
,r,r 9, 40, and 44). Appellants argue that Larsen is deficient because it
"discloses tracking a user's head to translate that movement into a video
game" and "has no disclosure of a driver or a vehicle or a displayed image
derived from image data captured by the cameras." Reply Br. 7. We do not
finds Appellants' argument persuasive because, as we discussed above, the
Examiner does not rely on Larsen for elements Appellants assert are missing
from Larsen-the Examiner relies on Pryor as disclosing the driver and
Dellantoni for the captured image data. As such, Appellants argument
attacking Larsen individually is not persuasive of Examiner error, and we
sustain the rejection of claim 21.
Remaining Claims
Appellants do not present separate arguments for any claims not
addressed above. As such, those claims also fall together with their
respective independent claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 8-21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
12