FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 17, 2020

2019003399 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2020)

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