Ex Parte Stam et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 29, 2009

10914732 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOSEPH S. STAM,
JON H. BECHTEL,
SPENCER D. REESE,
DARIN D. TUTTLE,
GREGORY S. BUSH,
and HAROLD C. OCKERSE
____________

Appeal 2008-5086
Application 10/914,7321
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: January 29, 2009
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, PETER F. KRATZ, and MARK NAGUMO,
Administrative Patent Judges.

PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1 through 11, 13, 14, 16 though 28, 30,

1 The subject application is said to be a continuation of U.S. Patent
Application 10/208,142, filed on July 20, 2002. See Spec. 1, Para. [0001].
Appeal 2008-5086
Application 10/914,732

31, and 33 through 36.2 Claims 12, 15, 29, and 32 stand objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected base claims, but are indicated to be allowable if
rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base
claim and any intervening claims.3 See Ans. 2. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm.
The subject matter on appeal is directed to “automatic vehicle exterior
light control systems . . . capable of more accurately detecting the brightness
and color of small, distant light sources” (Spec. 1, paras. [0002] and [0011]).
Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in representative
independent claims 1, 12, 16, and 33 reproduced from the Claims Appendix
to the Appeal Brief as follows4:

1. An apparatus, comprising:

a light source detection and classification system, for use in an
automatic vehicle exterior light control system, comprising:

at least one pixel array; and

2 An oral hearing was held on December 9, 2008.
3 Appellants are reminded that the Examiner has objected to claims 12, 15,
29, and 32 of the subject application. See Ans. 2. Notwithstanding
Appellants’ assertion to the contrary in the “Grounds of Rejection to be
Reviewed on Appeal” at page 13 of the Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s
objection is not a rejection and is not an appealable matter to this Board.
Rather, it is a matter reviewable by the Director of the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office on Petition. See, e.g., Manuel of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) 1002 (Revision 2, May 2004).
4 To the extent that Appellants have presented substantive arguments for
separate patentability of any individual claims on appeal, we will address
them separately consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).

2
Appeal 2008-5086
Application 10/914,732

at least one pigment spectral filter material disposed between light
sources to be detected and said pixel array, configured such that an accurate
color ratio is maintained over time.

12. A light source detection and classification system as in claim 1,
wherein individual pixels of said pixel array are filtered with said spectral
filter material such that a checkerboard pattern of filtered and unfiltered
pixels is defined.

16. An apparatus, comprising:

a reflected light ray detection and classification system for use in an
automatic vehicle exterior light control system, comprising;

at least one pixel array; and

a red spectral filter material disposed between reflected light rays to
be detected and said pixel array, configured such that an accurate color ratio
is maintained over time.

33. An apparatus, comprising:

an optical system, for use in an automatic vehicle exterior light control
system, comprising:

a dual lens system assembly for projecting a field of view onto a pixel
array such that a first image of said field of view is formed on a first portion
of said pixel array and a second image of said field of view is formed on a
second portion of said pixel array; and

at least one pigment spectral filter material disposed between said
field of view and said pixel array, configured such that an accurate color
ratio is maintained over time.

According to paragraph [0003], page 1, of the Specification, various
light sensors and/or an array of sensors are “commonly referred to as an
array of ‘pixels’ or ‘pixel arrays’.”
3
Appeal 2008-5086
Application 10/914,732

As evidence of unpatentability of the appealed subject matter, the
Examiner proffered the following prior art references:
Niu US 5,523,340 Jun. 4, 1996
Schofield US 6,559,435 B2 May 6, 2003

The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 11, 13, 14, 16 through 28, 30,
31, and 33 through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Schofield and Niu.
Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s decision rejecting the claims
on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
ISSUE
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Schofield
teaches a light source detection and classification system useful for
automatic vehicle exterior light control modules, comprising at least one
pixel array and at least one spectral filter material configured in the claimed
manner. Compare Ans. 3-5, with App. Br. 13-18 and Reply Br. 1-7. Rather,
Appellants contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
led to employ the pigment- based spectral filter taught by Niu as the spectral
filter of Schofield’s light source detection and classification system within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. See App. Br. 13-18 and Reply Br. 1-7.
Thus, the dispositive question raised in this case is: Have Appellants
identified reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to employ the pigment
based spectral filter taught by Niu as the spectral filter of Schofield’s light
source detection and classification system within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
103?
4
Appeal 2008-5086
Application 10/914,732

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants fail to identify any reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to
employ the pigment based spectral filter taught by Niu as the spectral filter
of Schofield’s light source detection and classification system within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
RELEVANT FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
The Factual Findings set forth below are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record:
1. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Schofield
teaches a light source detection and classification system useful for
automatic vehicle exterior light control modules, comprising at least one
pixel array and at least one spectral filter material configured in the claimed
manner. Compare Ans. 3-5, with App. Br. 13-18 and Reply Br. 1-7.
Specifically, Schofield teaches an automatic light control system for
vehicles, comprising an imaging sensor module corresponding to the
claimed light source detection and classification system comprising an
optical device, such as a lens, an array of light sensors corresponding to the
claimed array of pixels and a spectral separation device, such as a spectral
filter array, disposed between the optical device and the light sensing array
corresponding to the claimed array of pixels (col. 3, l. 45 to col. 8, l. 47,
especially col. 4, ll. 25-30, col. 5, ll. 14-67, and Fig. 5).
5
Appeal 2008-5086
Application 10/914,732

2. Schofield discloses that the system detects head lights from on-
coming vehicles, taillights from other vehicles, and light rays reflected from
traffic signs (col. 5, ll. 5-23, col. 13, ll. 1-40).
3. Schofield teaches a plurality of different color sensing pixels, namely
red, green, and blue (col. 5, ll. 5-14 and col. 8, ll. 7-22).
4. Schofield teaches that its spectral filter array “includes alternating
spectrum filter elements for exposing adjacent pixels to different regions of
the electromagnetic spectrum in the red band or green band or blue band . . .
accomplished by arranging such filter elements in stripes or by alternating
filter spectral regions in a manner known in the art” (col. 5, l. 61 to col. 6,
l. 3).
5. Schofield teaches an alternative imaging sensor module useful for
automatic vehicle light control systems, comprising two or more light
sensing arrays corresponding to pixel arrays, the corresponding number of
optical devices, such as dual (two) lens, and the corresponding number of
spectral filter arrays disposed between the optical devices and the pixel
arrays (col. 8, ll. 56-67, and Fig. 6).
6. Schofield’s spectral filters are inclusive of conventional spectral filter
materials, but are not specifically identified as the claimed pigment based
spectral filter materials (col. 4, ll. 25-30, col. 5, ll. 14-67).
7. Niu teaches (col. 1, ll. 18-44) that:
Thin film color filters are typically made by first
dispersing dye or pigment in an appropriate medium. Both
types of color filters have their respective advantages and
disadvantages. Typically, color filters made from dyes do not
experience dispersion problems which are commonly observed
when the color filters are made from pigments. Therefore,
6
Appeal 2008-5086
Application 10/914,732

dye-based color filters typically provide superior light
transmittance than pigment-based color filters. However, dye
based color filters often exhibit inadequate light, heat and/or
chemical stability, thus resulting in relatively short useful lives
of these color filters.
. . .

Pigment-based color filters, on comparison, provide
significantly better resistance to light, heat, and/or chemical
degradation, relative to the dye-based color filters . . . .

8. Niu teaches that its pigment dispersed color filters are superior to
those known dye or pigment-based spectral filters in that they have
“excellent light transmittances, as well as excellent light, heat and chemical
stabilities” (col. 1, ll. 6-11, and col. 2, ll. 15-32).
9. Niu teaches that its pigment dispersed spectral filters are useful for
transmitting red, green, and blue wavelengths (610 nm, 540 nm, and 450 nm
respectively) (col. 2, ll. 33-46).
10. Niu, like Appellants, employs a pigment-based spectral filter to avoid
the degradation problem associated with a dye-based spectral filter.
Compare Niu, col. 1, l. 18 to col. 2, l. 32, with page 16 of the Specification.
11. It is well within the common sense of one of ordinary skill in the art
interested in improving or solving the problem associated with the spectral
filter employed in Applicants’ or Schofield’s detection and classification
device to look to the spectral filter art, including the spectral filter described
in Niu, to enhance the spectral filter employed.

7
Appeal 2008-5086
Application 10/914,732

PRINCIPLES OF LAW

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations, if any. Graham
v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). “[A]nalysis [of whether the
subject matter of a claim would have been prima facie obvious] need not
seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co.,
v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007)); see also DyStar
Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d
1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“The motivation need not be found in the
references sought to be combined, but may be found in any number of
sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the
nature of the problem itself . . . .”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 1406-
407 (CCPA 1969) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific
teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled in the
art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom . . .”).
“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing
the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than
one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.”
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,
282 (1976)).
8
Appeal 2008-5086
Application 10/914,732

“A prerequisite to making this . . . [factual inquiry into obviousness] is
determining what is ‘prior art’ . . . this determination is frequently couched
in terms of whether the art is analogous or not, i.e., whether the art is ‘too
remote to be treated as prior art.’” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir.
1992)(quoting In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 741 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). In order to
determine whether or not prior art is analogous, we apply a two-prong test:
(1) whether the prior art is from the same field of Appellants’ field of
endeavor, and (2) if not, whether the prior art is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem Appellants are trying to solve. See Clay, 966 F.2d at
658-59 and In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Moreover, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the scope of
analogous prior art to include any technological prior art that solves any
need or problem known in Appellants’ field of endeavor. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at
1740-42 (“When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the
same field or a different one. . . [A]ny need or problem known in the
field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the [prior art]
patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner
claimed.”) (Emphasis added).
ANALYSIS
Schofield teaches automatic light control systems for vehicles,
comprising an imaging sensor module corresponding the claimed light
source detection and classification system comprising an optical device,
such as a lens, an array of light sensors corresponding to the claimed array of
pixels and a spectral separation device, such as a spectral filter array,
9
Appeal 2008-5086
Application 10/914,732

disposed between the optical device and the light sensing array
corresponding to the claimed array of pixel. Schofield teaches a plurality of
different color sensing pixels, namely red, green, and blue, and spectral filter
arrays for transmitting the red band or green band or blue band wavelengths.
Although Schofield does not identify specific spectral filters, its
“spectral filter arrays” generically include the conventionally known dye and
pigment-based spectral filter materials taught by Niu. More importantly,
Niu teaches that its pigment dispersed spectral filters are superior to those
known dye and pigment-based filters in term of light transmittances and
light, heat and chemical stabilities and are useful for transmitting red, green,
and blue wavelengths (610 nm, 540 nm, and 450 nm respectively).
Such teachings, support the Examiner’s finding of fact that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ the pigment-based
spectral filter taught by Niu as the spectral filter of Schofield’s imaging
sensor module (light source detection and classification system), with a
reasonable expectation of successfully increasing the useful life of
Schofield’s imaging sensor module. The combination therefore would have
been obvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at
1740 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. at 282 (“[W]hen a patent
‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had
been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from
such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.”)
In reaching this determination, we have considered Appellants’
contention that Niu is not from an analogous art. See App. Br. 17 and Reply
Br. 5. However, we find that Niu’s discussion of using its pigment dispersed
10
Appeal 2008-5086
Application 10/914,732

spectral filter to provide excellent light, heat and chemical stabilities is
reasonably pertinent to the problem confronted by Appellants. In this
regard, Niu, like Appellants, employs a pigment-based spectral filter to
avoid the degradation problem associated with a dye-based spectral filter. In
any event, it is well within common sense of one of ordinary skill in the art
interested in improving or solving the problem associated with the spectral
filter employed in Applicants’ or Schofield’s detection and classification
device to look to the spectral filter art, including the spectral filter described
in Niu, to enhance the spectral filter employed. Accordingly, we find, as did
the Examiner, that Niu is from an analogous art.
As to claims 16 through 28, 30, 31, and 33 through 36, Appellants
simply reiterate the limitations of claims 16 and 33. See App. Br. 18.
However, Appellants do not specifically point out why these claims are
separately patentable over the prior art of record. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37
(c)(1)(vii) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will
not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”) As
such, we determine that claims 16 through 28, 30, 31, and 33 through 36
stand or fall with claim 1 in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Accordingly, based on the totality of the record, including due
consideration of Appellants’ arguments, we hold that the preponderance of
evidence weighs most heavily in favor of obviousness regarding the subject
matter recited in claims1 through 11, 13, 14, 16 through 28, 30, 31, & 33
through 36 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
11
Appeal 2008-5086
Application 10/914,732

TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

cam

BRIAN J. REES
GENTEX CORPORATION
600 NORTH CENTENNIAL STREET
ZEELAND MI 49465

12