Ex Parte Vojtisek et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2018

13895646 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/895,646 05/16/2013 Mark G. Vojtisek
28866 7590 03/22/2018
MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD
ONE MARITIME PLAZA - FIFTH FLOOR
720 WATER STREET
TOLEDO, OH 43604
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.
83348898 5143
EXAMINER
JOISIL, BERTEAU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2018 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):
docketing@mstfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK G. VOJTISEK, MICHAEL J. MILLER,
CARLA A. GALE, RICHARD A. KREDER, and MARY C. SPIETH
Appeal2017-009288
Application 13/895,646
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-17, 19, and 20, which constitute all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Ford Global Technologies,
LLC. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-009288
Application 13/895,646
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
"driver vision systems, and, more specifically, to a rear view camera system
using an external camera with a large field of view together with an internal
camera and display providing contextual information to the driver."
Spec. 1: 16-19. 2
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A rearward viewing system for an automotive vehicle,
compnsmg:
an image display mounted for viewing by a driver;
an exterior image sensor for capturing a first image
directed externally of the vehicle with a first field of view;
an internal image sensor for capturing a second image
directed internally of the vehicle with a second field of view,
wherein the first and second fields of view at least partially
overlap; and
an image integrator merging the first and second images
according to a predetermined alignment to join the first and
second fields of view into a same reference frame, wherein the
second image is muted in the merged image to see through the
second image to the first image, so that the first image is
emphasized when displayed on the image display.
App. Br. 8 (Claims App'x).
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed Jan. 25, 2017 ("Final
Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Feb. 22, 2017 ("App. Br.") and Reply
Brief filed June 19, 2017 ("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed June
19, 2017 ("Ans."); and, the original Specification filed May 16, 2013
("Spec.").
2
Appeal2017-009288
Application 13/895,646
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 17, 19, and 20 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nicholas et al. (US 2009/0225434 Al;
published Sept. 10, 2009) ("Nicholas"), Prokhorov (US 2012/003 6097 Al;
published Feb. 9, 2012), Xin (US 2013/0147910 Al; published June 13,
2013), and Jobes, I et al. (US 2005/0040939 Al; published Feb. 24, 2005)
("Jobes").
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nicholas, Prokhorov, Xin, Jobes, 4 and Schofield et al. (US
2002/0003571 Al; published Jan. 10, 2002) ("Schofield").
Claims 6, 7, and 11-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nicholas, Prokhorov, Xin, Jobes, and Luo et al. (US
2011/0115615 Al; published May 19, 2011) ("Luo").
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue raised by Appellants' arguments is whether the
combination of Nicholas, Prokhorov, Xin, and Jobes teaches or suggests
an image integrator merging the first and second images
according to a predetermined alignment to join the first and
second fields of view into a same reference frame, wherein the
second image is muted in the merged image to see through the
second image to the first image, so that the first image is
emphasized when displayed on the image display
3 Although the rejection includes claims 18 and 21 in the rejection's heading
(Final Act. 5), these claims have been canceled (id. at 10-11 ).
4 Although the rejection's heading does not include Jobes, claims 4 and 5
depend from claim 1, which was rejected based on Nicholas, Prokhorov,
Xin, and Jobes. Similarly, claims 6, 7, and 11-16 depend directly or
indirectly from claim 1, and Jobes should be included in the rejection of
these claims.
3
Appeal2017-009288
Application 13/895,646
as recited in independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in
independent claim 1 7.
The Examiner finds Nicholas, Prokhorov, and Xin "are not quite
specific about" the disputed limitation of claim 1. Ans. 5. The Examiner
finds, however, "Jobes discloses a system including a rearview camera (and
other cameras) as part of a coach management such that the camera and
monitor are integrated to display, simultaneously, coach data or information
in the form of text and symbols, or other views from other cameras so as to
display overlapped images." Ans. 5-6 (citing Jobes, Abstract, Figs. 3, 5-7,
i-fi-f 15, 16, 21). Specifically, the Examiner finds Jobes teaches overlaying
one video image onto another (e.g., picture on picture). Id. at 6 (citing Jobes
i-f 15). The Examiner also finds the system of Jobes "can also make one
image stand out with respect to a background image." Id. at 6 (citing Jobes
Fig. 3 (elements 16a, 18a), Jobes i-f 111 ("video mixing module 304 may
enable the overlay 326 of text onto a video signal, provide picture-in-picture
capability 328, or other video mixing capabilities"). The Examiner then
finds "[t]his is one way to implement the feature" and quotes the disputed
limitation of claim 1. Ans. 6.
Appellants argue the combination of references "fails to disclose any
capability to merge or overlay images in a way that changes them in a way
that could emphasize one image over the other." App. Br. 4. Appellants
also argue "[ t ]he particular image merging and muting is not disclosed in the
combined teachings." Id. at 4--5; Reply Br. 2.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred.
In particular, we agree with Appellants' argument that "[t]he rejection fails
4
Appeal2017-009288
Application 13/895,646
to provide any reasoning why one skilled in the art would have ...
merged/muted the images as claimed." App. Br. 5. We have reviewed the
portions of Jobes cited by the Examiner and agree with Appellants'
arguments they do not teach or suggest muting the second image in the
merged image to see through the second image to the first image, so the first
image is emphasized. Notably, Figure 3 shows text 16a in bold (e.g.,
emphasized) overlapping video 18a, and video 18a muted in contrast with
text 16a to see through to video 18a. Jobes, Fig. 3 (screen 15a). Text,
however, is not an image as recited. The rejection has also not sufficiently
articulated how the reference's teachings would be combined such that an
image would be substituted for Jobes' text to arrive at claim 1 's limitations.
Final Act. 8. Although the Examiner finds that "one way to implement the
feature" of Jobes is by the disputed limitation of claim 1, this finding is
conclusory and unsupported by persuasive reasoning or support in Jobes.
Based on this record, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Jobes teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims
2-16, under§ 103(a). For the same reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 17 and dependent claims 19 and 20 under
§ 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-17, 19, and 20
for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5