FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 17, 20202019003399 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 15/244,920 08/23/2016 Matus BANYAY 83700749 7320 28395 7590 12/17/2020 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL 1000 TOWN CENTER 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER AZONGHA, SARDIS F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2627 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/17/2020 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@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MATUS BANYAY and MARCUS HAEFNER ____________________ Appeal 2019-003399 Application 15/244,920 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to methods of controlling and operating a vehicle head-up display (HUD) to adjust a position of a light bundle generated by the HUD to match the driver’s eye position, by automatically 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant(s)” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC. (Appeal Br. 2.) Appeal 2019-003399 Application 15/244,920 2 adjusting the position of a combiner to align the light bundle or eyebox generated by a projector and reflected by the combiner, with the driver’s eye position as determined by a processor. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of controlling a head-up display of a vehicle comprising: operating a camera to capture an image of a head of a driver reflected in a combiner of the head-up display; operating a processor to analyze the image to determine a position of an eye of the driver; and automatically adjusting a position of the combiner to align a light bundle generated by the projector and reflected by the combiner with the position of the eye. (Appeal Br., Appx1.) REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Matsumoto US 5,734,357 Mar. 31, 1998 Sugiyama et al. US 2014/0177064 A1 June 26, 2014 (“Sugiyama”) Oguro et al. US 2016/0202471 A1 July 14, 2016 (“Oguro”) Appeal 2019-003399 Application 15/244,920 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Sugiyama. (Final Act. 2–14.) Claims 4, 10, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Sugiyama, and further in view of Oguro. (Final Act. 14–15.) ANALYSIS With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds the combination of Matsumoto and Sugiyama teaches “automatically adjusting a position of the combiner to align a light bundle generated by the projector and reflected by the combiner with the position of the eye,” as claimed. (Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 4–6.) Particularly, the Examiner finds Matsumoto controls a head-up display of a vehicle by automatically adjusting an angle of a reflecting means (3) to align a light bundle generated by a projector and reflected by a combiner with the position of an eye. (Final Act. 2–3 (citing Matsumoto 4:61–67, Fig. 5).) The Examiner recognizes Matsumoto does not teach automatically adjusting a position of a combiner as claimed, but finds Sugiyama adjusts a position of a combiner to align a light bundle with the eye position and solv[e] the problem of a superfluous virtual image (ghost) produced by reflection from the surface of the instrument panel in the field of view of the driver . . . by using a restricting unit that restricts the inclination, with respect to a prescribed Appeal 2019-003399 Application 15/244,920 4 direction, of a surface of the combiner to a predetermined angle of a ghost suppression state. (Final Act. 3–4, 16 (citing Sugiyama ¶¶ 14–17, 21, 68).) Based on these factual findings, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . to further modify the invention of Matsumoto to include aligning a light bundle generated by the projector with the position of the driver’s eye, by adjusting the position of the combiner, as taught by Sugiyama, in order to prevent formation of a superfluous ghost image. . . . there is a clear motivation to combine Matsumoto and Sugiyama, which is to provide a display device for a vehicle which can suppress formation of a superfluous ghost due to reflection of external light even in the case where a combiner is used that is configured so as to be movable. (Final Act. 4, 16–17 (emphases added).) We do not agree. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has shown portions of the claimed invention, but none of Matsumoto and Sugiyama nor the proffered combination of Matsumoto and Sugiyama, teach or suggest automatically adjusting a position of a combiner to align a light bundle reflected by the combiner with an eye position determined from an image of the driver’s head reflected in the combiner, as required by claim 1. (Appeal Br. 3–4; Reply Br. 2.) As Appellant explains, the ordinarily skilled artisan would not and could not have been led by the teachings of Sugiyama to adjust a position of Matsumoto’s combiner. (Id.) Sugiyama solves a problem of a superfluous virtual image (ghost) “formed by the reflection light coming from the back surface 20b of the combiner 20 (i.e., an image reflected from the surface of the windshield 220).” (See Sugiyama ¶¶ 14, 75.) The skilled artisan would not modify Matsumoto’s combiner as the Examiner proposes Appeal 2019-003399 Application 15/244,920 5 because (1) Matsumoto’s combiner is not movable or rotatable, as the combiner is part of a vehicle’s windshield, and (2) Matsumoto’s optical arrangement does not suffer from the superfluous virtual image (“ghost”) problem of Sugiyama. (Appeal Br. 3–4; Reply Br. 2.) More particularly, Matsumoto’s fixed “combiner is formed in one portion of a front [vehicle] window” as “a metalized film,” “multilayer film mirror, [] hologram and the like.” (See Matsumoto 1:45–47, 4:17–18, 6:13–16, 8:42–43.) Thus, Matsumoto’s optical arrangement does not produce a “ghost” image because the combiner is not rotated or positioned so as to cause a reflection from a back surface or a reflection image from a windshield (as Sugiyama’s combiner does). (Appeal Br. 3–4; Reply Br. 2.) Furthermore, Matsumoto does not need a rotatable combiner to adjust an eyebox, because the eyebox position is already adjusted in Matsumoto by the movable reflecting means. (Id.; see Matsumoto 5:11–25.) The Examiner has also not identified how the additional reference of Oguro remedies the above-noted deficiencies of Matsumoto and Sugiyama. As the Examiner has not identified a reason that would prompt a skilled artisan to modify Matsumoto based on Sugiyama’s rotatable combiner, we cannot sustain the Examiner obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2–6 dependent therefrom. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 7 (reciting “automatically adjusting a position of the combiner to align an eyebox generated by the head-up display with the position of the eye [determined from a captured image of the head of the driver reflected in the combiner]”) and claim 13 (reciting “automatically adjusting a position of the combiner to align an eyebox produced by the head-up display with the position of the eye Appeal 2019-003399 Application 15/244,920 6 [determined from a captured image of the head of the driver reflected by the combiner]”) argued for substantially the same reasons as claim 1, and dependent claims 8–12 and 14–18. (Appeal Br. 4.) CONCLUSIONS The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–18 based upon obviousness. DECISION For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5–9, 11–15, 17, 18 103 Matsumoto, Sugiyama 1–3, 5–9, 11–15, 17, 18 4, 10, 16 103 Matsumoto, Sugiyama, Oguro 4, 10, 16 Overall Outcome 1–18 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation