Joern Ihlenburg et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 3, 2020

14233508 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 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.
14/233,508 01/17/2014 Joern Ihlenburg MAG04 P-1907 1182
153508 7590 03/03/2020
HONIGMAN LLP/MAGNA
650 TRADE CENTRE WAY
SUITE 200
KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402
EXAMINER
RETALLICK, KAITLIN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2020 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, GOERG PFLUG, and ACHIM GIESEKE
Appeal 2018-003893
Application 14/233,508
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12 and 15–20, which are all of the

1 We refer to the Specification, filed January 17, 2014 (“Spec.”); Final
Office Action, mailed April 4, 2017 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed
October 4, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed December 28,
2017 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed February 27, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Magna Electronics
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-003893
Application 14/233,508

2
pending claims. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an imaging system for a vehicle. Claims 1
and 15, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized in italics,
are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A vision system for a vehicle, said vision system
comprising:
a plurality of imaging sensors disposed at the vehicle, each
having a respective exterior field of view and each capturing
respective image data;
a display screen disposed in the vehicle and operable to
display images for viewing by a driver of the vehicle, wherein
said display screen is operable to display images derived from
image data captured by said imaging sensors;
a processing system operable to process image data
captured by said imaging sensors and to at least one of combine
and manipulate image data captured by said imaging sensors to
provide a three-dimensional representation of the exterior scene
for display at said display screen;
wherein said processing system is operable to process said
captured image data in accordance with a curved surface model;
wherein said processing system is operable to process said
captured image data to provide a first three-dimensional
representation in accordance with a first curved surface model
as if seen by a virtual observer from a first virtual viewing point
exterior of the vehicle having a first viewing direction;
wherein said processing system is operable to adjust
processing of said captured image data for displaying a second
three-dimensional representation in accordance with a second
curved surface model as if seen by a virtual observer from a
second virtual viewing point exterior of the vehicle having a
Appeal 2018-003893
Application 14/233,508

3
second viewing direction to provide enhanced display of the
images as if viewed from the second virtual viewing point; and
wherein said first and second curved surface models each
comprise a virtual surface around the vehicle, and wherein each
virtual surface has respective surface curvature, and wherein the
surface curvature of the virtual surface of said second curved
surface model is different from the surface curvature of the
virtual surface of said first curved surface model; and
wherein, responsive to the first virtual viewing point
exterior of the vehicle having said first viewing direction, said
display screen displays the first three-dimensional representation
in accordance with said first curved surface model, and wherein,
responsive to the second virtual viewing point exterior of the
vehicle having said second viewing direction, said display screen
displays the second three-dimensional representation in
accordance with said second curved surface model.

15. A vision system for a vehicle, said vision system
comprising:
a plurality of imaging sensors disposed at the vehicle and
having exterior fields of view, said imaging sensors capturing
image data for transmitting image data to a processing system;
a display screen for displaying images derived from said
captured image data;
wherein said processing system is operable to transform
transmitted image data to produce a view of the exterior area
surrounding the vehicle, and wherein said processing system is
operable to select a first portion of captured image data for
transmitting by said imaging sensors to said processing system,
and wherein said processing system transforms the transmitted
first portion of image data and communicates the transformed
first portion of image data to said display screen for displaying
images at said display screen;
wherein, responsive to an indication that information
outside of the first portion of said transformed image data is to
be displayed on said display screen, said processing system
selects a second portion of captured image data for transmitting
by said imaging sensor to said processing system, and wherein
said processing system transforms the transmitted second portion
Appeal 2018-003893
Application 14/233,508

4
of image data and communicates the transformed second portion
of image data to said display screen for displaying images at said
display screen; and
wherein said transformed first portion of image data
comprises a defined region of a captured image that is less than
the entire captured image, and wherein said transformed second
portion of image data comprises another defined region of the
captured image that is different from the defined region of the
first portion.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Okamoto
Riconda
Hager
Jones
Ovsiannikov
Baur
Long-Tai
Sanders-Reed
Hongo
Peterson
US 7,307,655 B1
US 2002/0130953 A1
US 2004/0105580 A1
US 2006/0268360 A1
US 2008/0056607 A1
US 2008/0212189 A1
US 2009/0167564 A1
US 2010/0017047 A1
US 2011/0001826 A1
US 2011/0193961 A1
Mar. 6, 2008
Sept. 19, 2002
June 3, 2004
Nov. 30, 2006
Dec. 11, 2007
Sept. 4, 2008
July 2, 2009
Jan. 21, 2010
Jan. 6, 2011
Aug. 11, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Okamoto and Hongo. Final Act. 17–25.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Okamoto, Hongo, and Riconda. Final Act. 25.
Claims 6, 7, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Okamoto, Hongo, and Maki. Final Act. 25–27.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Okamoto, Hongo, Maki, and Hager. Final Act. 27–28.
Appeal 2018-003893
Application 14/233,508

5
Claims 10–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Okamoto, Hongo, and Baur. Final Act. 28–30.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Okamoto, Hongo, and Jones. Final Act. 30–34.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Okamoto, Hongo, Jones, and Ovsiannikov. Final Act. 34–
36.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Okamoto, Hongo, Jones, and Sanders-Reed. Final Act. 36–37.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Okamoto, Hongo, Jones, and Long-Tai. Final Act. 37.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Okamoto, Hongo, Jones, Long-Tai, and Peterson. Final Act. 37–38.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
To the extent consistent with our analysis herein, we adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the action from
which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 16–38) and (2) the Examiner’s Answer
in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 24–135).
Appeal 2018-003893
Application 14/233,508

6
35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 1
With respect to the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1,
Appellant contends that the combination of Okamoto and Hongo “does not
disclose or suggest the curved surface model as claimed, including
adjustment of image processing to provide first and second three-
dimensional representations in accordance with first and second curved
surface models.” Appeal Br. 16. Appellant contends that “Okamoto
discloses using a joystick to change the virtual point of view within the same
curved surface model.” Id. at 17.
Regarding Hongo, Appellant argues as follows:
Hongo discloses taking the view of a camera mounted on the rear
of the vehicle, changing the viewpoint to a bird’s-eye view, and
then presenting an image to the user of a portion of the bird’s-
eye view, and a portion of the camera’s actual view. There is no
curved surface model, and there is only a single virtual viewpoint
(the bird’s eye view; the other viewpoint is not virtual, it is
merely a view directly from the camera, see Figures 6 and 7 of
Hongo). Moreover, there is no disclosure or suggestion in Hongo
of first and second curved surface models having different
surface curvatures, as claimed.
Id. at 23.
Appellant further argues that
neither Okamoto nor Hongo (alone or in combination with one
another or with any other prior art of record) discloses or
suggests a processing adjustment that results in surface curvature
of the virtual surfaces of the respective curved surface models
being different from one another, with the display screen
displaying the first three-dimensional representation in
accordance with the first curved surface model responsive to the
first virtual viewing point exterior of the vehicle having the first
Appeal 2018-003893
Application 14/233,508

7
viewing direction, and with the display screen displaying the
second three-dimensional representation in accordance with the
second curved surface model responsive to the second virtual
viewing point exterior of the vehicle having the second viewing
direction, such as claimed (collectively and in combination with
the other claim elements). To the contrary, Okamoto and Hongo
merely disclose providing different virtual viewpoints, but
without any corresponding change in surface curvature of a
curved surface model.
Id. at 24–25.
Appellant also argues that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have
no reason to combine these two references.” Id. at 24.
Figures 3 and 4 of Appellant’s Specification are reproduced below.

Figures 3 and 4 depict “schematics . . . [with] FIG. 4 show[ing] how a virtual
projection surface is adapted for different virtual viewpoints in accordance
with the present invention.” Spec. ¶ 10, Figs. 3, 4. Appellant contends “[a]s
Appeal 2018-003893
Application 14/233,508

8
is clearly shown in FIGS. 3 and 4, the surface curvature of the virtual surface
of the second curved surface model (FIG. 3) is different from the surface
curvature of the virtual surface of the first curved surface model (FIG. 4).”
Id. at 20.
The Examiner finds as follows regarding Okamoto:
Through [] user interaction, the three-dimensional position of the
virtual point of view is changed and the direction of the line of
sight from the virtual point of view is changed [See Okamoto,
Col. 51]. Okamoto discloses that the correction of the point of
view (changing of the point of view) includes the
replacement/correction of the X, Y, and Z coordinates of the
camera position (point of view) in the three-dimensional system.
Though the space model is not explicitly changed into a
new space model, the space model’s coordinates and view (i.e.,
change of perspective) are changed which creates a space model
that is different from the original space model (before the change
of view/perspective) [See Okamoto]. Therefore, the first image
of the space model that is displayed on the screen contains
different coordinates than the second space model that is
displayed on the screen when the three-dimensional position of
the virtual point of view of the space model is changed [See
Okamoto, Col. 51]. Thus, the space model would be changed
into the same model with different coordinates based on the
changing of the virtual point of view, which would change the
three dimensional model used.
Ans. 46 (emphasis added).
With respect to Hongo, the Examiner finds as follows:
Hongo discloses an original bird’s-eye-view image as
viewed from the viewpoint of a virtual camera on a bird’s-eye-
view coordinate plane [See Hongo, 0063–0065]. An augmented
bird’s-eye-view image is viewed from the viewpoint of the
virtual camera with a narrower viewing field than the original
bird’s-eye-view image [See Hongo, 0068 and 0071]. The
original bird’s-eye-view image is located on a flat plane for a
Appeal 2018-003893
Application 14/233,508

9
narrow view and the augmented bird’s-eye-view image is located
with the different plane for a less narrow view [See Hongo,
0068]. As can be seen in Fig. 9, the augmented bird’s eye-view
image has a curved surface in the 2nd image region. Thus, the
original bird’s eye-view image (first image) has zero surface
curvature on a flat plane and the augmented bird’s-eye-view
image (second image) has surface curvature on a different plane.
Therefore, the two images have different surface curvatures.
Id. at 46–47.
The Examiner reasons as follows:
It would have been obvious to modify the changing of the
viewing direction/point of view on the same curved surface
model with different coordinates and the use of more than one
curved surface model to map the three dimensional positions of
the images surrounding the vehicle as taught by Okamoto with
the use of creating an augmented bird’s eye view image and the
original bird’s-eye-view image with different coordinate planes,
which have different surfaces as taught by Hongo.
Id. at 47.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has
erred. Specifically, we find no reasonable basis for the Examiner’s
apparently contradictory findings that “[t]hough the space model is not
explicitly changed into a new space model, the space model’s coordinates
and view (i.e., change of perspective) are changed[,] which creates a space
model that is different from the original space model (before the change of
view/perspective).” Ans. 46 (referring to Okamoto col. 51). Thus, we are
not persuaded that Okamoto discloses “adjust processing of said captured
image data for displaying a second three-dimensional representation in
accordance with a second curved surface model as if seen by a virtual
observer from a second virtual viewing point exterior of the vehicle having a
Appeal 2018-003893
Application 14/233,508

10
second viewing direction,” as recited in claim 1. Further, the Examiner does
not cite Hongo for adjusting processing to display a second three-
dimensional representation in accordance with a second curved surface
model, but rather cites Hongo for first and second bird’s-eye-views. See
Final Act. 20–22; Ans. 46–47.
For at least the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
decision to reject claim 1 or claims 2–12, which depend either directly or
indirectly therefrom.
Claim 15
Independent claim 15 recites, in relevant part,
wherein said processing system is operable to select a first
portion of captured image data for transmitting by said imaging
sensors to said processing system, and . . . wherein, responsive
to an indication that information outside of the first portion of
said transformed image data is to be displayed on said display
screen, said processing system selects a second portion of
captured image data for transmitting by said imaging sensor to
said processing system.
Claim 15 (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that “Jones discloses that in response to user input
or randomly, different sections of an image can be selected to transmit from
the imaging device to a remote location.” Ans. 103 (citing Jones ¶ 73).
Jones discloses
Either as part of a temporal sequence, in response to user input,
or randomly, the system may begin selecting different sections
of the image 250 to transmit in high resolution format. This is
depicted in FIG. 12D by the high resolution section 252 of the
image 250 that appears on the right-hand side of the scene. The
next figure, FIG. 12E, shows an image 260, which illustrates the
high resolution section 258 being centered on the car and the
Appeal 2018-003893
Application 14/233,508

11
adjacent tree. The transmitted image 260 has a relatively low
resolution for that portion of the image which is not of interest to
the user. However, the sensor array that is capturing the image
of the car and the adjacent tree can be identified and the image
data generated by that sensor can also be identified and
transmitted in a high resolution format to the remote location.
This provides the composite image 260 depicted in the figure.
Jones ¶ 73.
Appellant argues claim 15 on the basis that “Jones discloses
transmitting an entire image, a portion of which may be transmitted in
higher resolution. There is no disclosure in Jones of transmitting only a
portion of the image, as claimed.” Reply Br. 12.
This argument does not persuade us of error because the argument is
not commensurate with the scope of the claim. The claim does not recite
transmitting only a portion of the image, as Appellant argues. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15.
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and recites “wherein said vision
system provides for reduced bandwidth requirements by transmitting only
data appropriate for providing the selected image display.”
The Examiner finds that “Sanders-Reed discloses that when the
bandwidth is not sufficient to support the fully enhanced image, the image
processor modifies one or more of the transmission characteristics to enable
the transmission of an adequate enhanced image to be displayed on the
HMD.” Ans. 114 (citing Sanders-Reed Fig. 4; ¶ 44).
Appellant does not dispute the disclosure of Sanders-Reed, but rather
argues the rejection of claim 16 on the basis that “the claimed invention
Appeal 2018-003893
Application 14/233,508

12
reduces bandwidth by only transmitting a subset of the image.” Reply
Br. 13.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of error because the argument is
not commensurate with the scope of the claim. The claim does not recite
transmitting a subset of the image, as Appellant argues. The claim recites
“transmitting only data appropriate for providing the selected image
display,” which reads on the disclosure of Sanders-Reed because Sanders-
Reed discloses “enabl[ing] the transmission of an adequate enhanced image
to be displayed.” Sanders-Reed ¶ 44. Thus, we sustain the rejection of
claim 16.
Claim 17
Claim 17 depends from claim 15 and recites “wherein a subset of
captured image data is transmitted by each of said imaging sensors and
processed by said processing system.” Appellant argues claim 17 on the
basis that “Long-Tai makes no reference to the image sensor only
transmitting a subset of the image data captured. Instead, the image sensors
send all of their respective data to the controller.” App. Br. 36; see Reply
Br. 14 (“Long-Tai discloses the image sensors outputting the entirety of the
data they capture and not a subset as claimed.”).
Again, Appellant misstates the claim, which does not recite each
image sensor only transmitting a subset of the image data captured. By
“outputting the entirety of the data they capture” (Reply Br. 14), the image
sensors of Long-Tai also are transmitting a subset within the entirety.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 17.
Appeal 2018-003893
Application 14/233,508

13
Claim 18
Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and recites “wherein said processing
system is operable to set a resolution of subsets of captured image data and
wherein at least one subset of captured image data is transmitted at a lower
resolution as compared to others of said subsets of captured image data.”
The Examiner rejects claim 18 over the combination of Okamoto,
Hongo, Jones, Long-Tai, and Peters. Final Act. 38. The Examiner finds
“Long-Tai discloses wherein said processing system is operable to set a
resolution of subsets of captured image data” and “Peterson discloses
wherein at least one subset of captured image data is transmitted at a lower
resolution as compared to others of said subsets of captured image data.” Id.
(citing Long-Tai ¶ 43 (disclosing adjusting the detection range resolution of
detection sensors) and Peterson ¶ 26 (“the image resolution may be reduced
(such as by reducing the resolution by half or by any other suitable or
desired amount) temporarily either in X or Y or both”)).
Appellant argues that “Long-Tai has no disclosure or suggestion of
transmitting a subset of data at a lower resolution than other subsets of data.”
App. Br. 37. This argument is unpersuasive because Peterson, not Long-Tai,
is cited for “at least one subset of captured image data is transmitted at a
lower resolution as compared to others of said subsets of captured image
data.” Final Act. 38.
Appellant also argues that “[t]here is no disclosure or suggestion in
Peterson that only a subset of the image data may be transmitted with
reduced resolution, as claimed.” App. Br. 37. We disagree because the
claim recites “wherein at least one subset of captured image data is
transmitted at a lower resolution as compared to others of said subsets of
Appeal 2018-003893
Application 14/233,508

14
captured image data,” and Peterson discloses temporarily reducing
resolution, which discloses varying the resolution of transmitted subsets (i.e.,
temporal subsets) of captured image data, as claimed.
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 18.
The Remaining Claims
We also sustain the rejections of claims 19 and 20, which Appellant
does not argue with particularity.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner rejection of claims 1–12, and we affirm the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 15–20 as obvious.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4 103 Okamoto, Hongo 1–4
5

103 Okamoto, Hongo,
Riconda
5
6, 7, 9 103 Okamoto, Hongo, Maki 6, 7, 9
8 103 Okamoto, Hongo,
Maki, Hager
8
10–12 103 Okamoto, Hongo, Baur 10–12
15 103 Okamoto, Hongo,
Jones
15
19, 20 103 Okamoto, Hongo,
Jones, Ovsiannikov
19, 20
16 103 Okamoto, Hongo
Jones, Sanders-Reed
16
17 103 Okamoto, Hongo,
Jones, Long-Tai
17
Appeal 2018-003893
Application 14/233,508

15
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
18 103 Okamoto, Hongo,
Jones, Long-Tai,
Peterson
18
Overall
Outcome:
15–20 1–12

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART