Ihlenburg, Joern et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 30, 2020

14456163 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 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.
14/456,163 08/11/2014 Joern Ihlenburg MAG04-P2351-423743 2393
153508 7590 01/30/2020
HONIGMAN LLP/MAGNA
650 TRADE CENTRE WAY
SUITE 200
KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402
EXAMINER
KELLEY, CHRISTOPHER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2020 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):
asytsma@honigman.com
patent@honigman.com
tflory@honigman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOERN IHLENBURG and HOLGER HESS
____________________

Appeal 2019-001293
Application 14/456,163
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN A. EVANS, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal of these
claims pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a) (2017). Appellants identify Magna Electronics Inc. as the real
party in interest (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2019-001293
Application 14/456,163
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter added):
1. A vision system of a vehicle, said vision system
comprising:
a camera disposed at a vehicle and having a field of view
exterior of the vehicle;
a head unit comprising a video display screen for
displaying images derived from a video image data feed
received by said head unit from said camera;
wherein the video image data feed from said camera is
received by a video line connector of said head unit;
wherein said head unit comprises a plurality of circuit
slots;
wherein said head unit comprises a plurality of circuit
cards;
wherein a respective one of said plurality of circuit cards
of said head unit slots to a respective one of said circuit slots of
said head unit;
wherein each of said circuit slots is connected to said
video line connector of said head unit that receives the video
image data feed from said camera;
wherein each of said plurality of circuit cards receives
and individually processes video image data received by said
head unit at said video line connector of said head unit that
receives the video image data feed from said camera;
wherein each of said circuit cards receives the video
image data feed received by said head unit at said video line
connector from said camera and provides a respective
processing function associated with that circuit card;
wherein at least two of said plurality of circuit cards of
said head unit are operable to generate an output to said video
display screen of said head unit
responsive to processing by the respective circuit card of the
video image data feed received by said head unit;
wherein said video display screen of said head unit
displays images responsive to the respective outputs of said
circuit cards of said head unit;
Appeal 2019-001293
Application 14/456,163
3
[1] wherein one of said at least two cards comprises an
image processing chip that runs object detection software and
that receives image data captured by said camera and processes
the received image data to detect one of a pedestrian and a
vehicle in the field of view of said camera; and
[2] wherein said video display screen of said head unit
highlights the detected pedestrian or vehicle in the displayed
images.

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–6, 9, 10, 12–16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hottmann (US 2012/0069184 A1; Mar. 22,
2012) in further view of Boulia (US 2010/0128890 A1; May 27, 2010) and
Lyman (US 2010/0001897 A1; Jan. 7, 2010).
2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hottmann in further view of Boulia, Lyman, and Okada (US 2006/0072011
A1; Apr. 6, 2006).
3. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hottmann, Lyman in further view of Minikey (US 2011/0141381 A1; June
16, 2011).
4. Claims 11, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hottmann in further view of Boulia, Lyman, and
Chutorash (US 2011/0257973 A1; Oct. 20, 2011).
ANALYSIS2
Issue on Appeal: Did the Examiner err in combining Hottmann,
Boulia, and Lyman to teach or suggest all the limitations of independent

2 As to independent claims 12 and 18, Appellant merely repeats for these
claims the same or similar arguments directed to claim 1. (App. Br. 21–22,
Appeal 2019-001293
Application 14/456,163
4
claim 1 (and similarly recited in claims 12 and 18) because the references
are not properly combinable?
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. See App. Br. 7–17. Further, we
have reviewed the Examiner’s response regarding claims 1–17 to the
arguments presented by Appellant.
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Ans. 22–
32. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight
and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
The Examiner finds that Hottmann teaches all elements of exemplary
claim 1 (Final Act. 6–9), except for the “circuit slots” element for which the
Examiner relies upon Boulia (Final Act. 9); and elements [1] and [2] for
which the Examiner relies upon Lyman. (Final Act. 9–10).
Appellant’s arguments with respect to the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 1 mainly focus on whether Hottmann and Boulia are
combinable. App. Br. 9–19; Reply Br. 4–5.
In particular, Appellant contends:
the Final Office Action alleges that Hottmann and Boulia are in
the same field of endeavor because both inventions disclose
vehicle multimedia display systems. Appellant respectfully
disagrees. Neither the '163 application nor Hottmann disclose
multimedia systems. Instead, Hottmann discloses a motor

and 23–24). Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed
further herein.

Appeal 2019-001293
Application 14/456,163
5
vehicle rear view device in order to eliminate the need for side
rear view mirrors.
App. Br. 18. (Panel’s emphasis added).
Appellant also contends:
Here, we have the Examiner combining the vehicle rear view
system of Hottmann and combining it with the single receptacle
disclosed in Boulia for upgrading a user’s ability to connect
portable electronic devices to an automobile’s infotainment
system and alleging that such a combination is obvious to one
of ordinary art in the skill to disclose a plurality of circuit slots
in the head unit display of a vehicle vision system. The
Examiner is clearly impermissibly using hindsight
reconstruction with the '163 application claims as a template.
App. Br. 19. (Original emphasis removed, panel’s emphasis added).

The Examiner finds:
Hottman and Boulia are in the same field of endeavor.
Both inventions disclose vehicle multimedia display systems.
Hottmann disclose circuit cards and integrating the circuit cards
in to one unit (suggestive of a head unit). Hottmann does not
explicitly use the term card slot. Although the term is not used.
One with ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
circuit boards are mounted into slots. If one with ordinary skill
reproduced Appellants head unit using the circuit boards, a slot
for the board would be logically necessary to hold the circuit
card. Boulia was referenced in this rejection to evidence the
use of card slots. Boulia explicitly discloses a single unit,
similar to the claimed head unit (Boulia, figures 2–5) wherein
slots are provided for hardware components in one common
unit. One with ordinary skill in the art would acknowledge that
the circuit boards of Hottmann may be included via slots such
that the circuit boards are integrated in to a single unit, for the
purpose of simplifying the design of the vehicle multimedia
system.
Ans. 25–26 (see also Ans. 22, citing Hottmann, ¶¶ 43, 45, 50, 57, 59–61,
Figures 3, 4; Boulia, Figures 2–5).
Appeal 2019-001293
Application 14/456,163
6

We agree with the Examiner because Appellant’s arguments do not
take into account what the collective teachings of the prior art would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art and are therefore ineffective to
rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether
the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must
be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is
what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.” (Citations omitted)). This reasoning is
applicable here.
We further note that the Examiner has found actual teachings in the
prior art and has provided a rationale for the combination (see Final Act. 9–
10). We note that the above-noted teachings suggest that the combination
involves the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions. There is no requirement that the problem solved by
the secondary reference be discussed by the primary reference to apply the
teachings of the secondary reference in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Supreme Court has held that in analyzing the obviousness of combining
elements, a court need not find specific teachings, but rather may consider
“the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in
the art” and “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). To be nonobvious, an improvement must be “more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions,” id. at 417, and the basis for an obviousness rejection must
Appeal 2019-001293
Application 14/456,163
7
include an “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. at 418 (citation omitted). Here, the
Examiner has provided a rationale for the combination. Accordingly, we
find that the Examiner has provided sufficient motivation for modifying
Hottmann with the teachings of Boulia.
Regarding Appellant’s hindsight argument, we are cognizant that our
reviewing courts have not established a bright-line test for hindsight. In KSR
International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court
guides that “[a] factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion
caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of argument reliant upon ex
post reasoning.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co. of
Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966)). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court
qualified the issue of hindsight by stating, “[r]igid preventative rules that
deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary
under our case law nor consistent with it.” Id.
In reviewing the record here, we find Appellant has not identified any
knowledge relied upon by the Examiner that was gleaned only from
Appellant’s disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of application filing. See In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
Moreover, Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence that
combining the respective teachings of the references (as proffered by the
Examiner — Ans. 25–26) would have been “uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” or that such a combination
would have “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Nor has Appellant provided any objective evidence of secondary
Appeal 2019-001293
Application 14/456,163
8
considerations, which, as our reviewing court explains, “operate[] as a
beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese &
Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Regarding the dependent claims, while Appellant raises additional
arguments for patentability of the cited claims (App. Br. 21–27), we find that
the Examiner has responded in the Answer with sufficient evidence. Ans.
26–32. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying
reasoning, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art, or in the proper combinability
of the prior art references as suggested by the Examiner. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–20.

CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 9, 10,
12–16, 18, 19
103 Hottmann, Boulia,
Lyman
1–6, 9, 10,
12–16, 18, 19

7 103 Hottmann, Boulia,
Lyman, Okada
7

8 103 Hottmann, Lyman,
Minikey
8

11, 17, 20 103 Hottmann, Boulia,
Lyman, Chutorash
11, 17, 20

Outcome

1–20

Appeal 2019-001293
Application 14/456,163
9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED