MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 28, 2021

2020005104 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2021)

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.
15/420,239 01/31/2017 Sebastian Fluegel MAG04 P-2936/423880 7935
153508 7590 10/28/2021
HONIGMAN LLP/MAGNA
650 TRADE CENTRE WAY
SUITE 200
KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402
EXAMINER
CHANG, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2021 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 SEBASTIAN FLUEGEL
___________

Appeal 2020-005104
Application 15/420,239
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC B. CHEN, and HUNG H. BUI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-005104
Application 15/420,239

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 6–10, 13–17, 19, and 20. Claims
4, 5, 11, 12, and 18 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a vehicle vision system, which includes
multiple cameras with an exterior field of view of the vehicle. (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A vision system for a vehicle, said vision system
comprising:
a plurality of cameras disposed at a vehicle and having a
field of view exterior of the vehicle;
video display device disposed in the vehicle and
operable to display video images for viewing by a driver of the
vehicle;
wherein each camera of said plurality of cameras
captures respective image data;
wherein said plurality of cameras comprises a master
camera and at least one slave camera;
wherein said at least one slave camera comprises an
encryptor that encrypts the respective image data that is
captured by said at least one slave camera;

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Magna
Electronics, Inc. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2020-005104
Application 15/420,239

3
wherein said at least one slave camera communicates to
said master camera the encrypted image data captured and
encrypted by the respective slave camera;
wherein said master camera comprises a respective
decryptor for each slave camera of the at least one slave
camera that decrypts the encrypted image data received from
the respective slave camera to derive decrypted image data
from the encrypted image data received from the respective
slave camera;
wherein image data captured by said master camera is
unencrypted;
wherein said master camera comprises a view generator
operable to generate video images for display by said video
display device;
wherein said view generator of said master camera
receives unencrypted image data captured by said master
camera and receives said decrypted image data derived from
image data captured by said at least one slave camera; and
wherein video images generated by said view generator
are derived from both (i) unencrypted image data captured by
said master camera and (ii) said decrypted image data derived
from image data captured by said at least one slave camera.

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Lu et al. (“Lu ’014”) US 9,508,014 B2 Nov. 29, 2016
Lu et al. (“Lu ’381”) US 9,769,381 B2 Sept. 19, 2017
Glass US 2002/0056043 A1 May 9, 2002
Ishikawa et al. US 2002/0118958 A1 Aug. 29, 2002
Ahiska et al. US 2006/0056056 A1 Mar. 16, 2006
Diab et al. US 2009/0152943 A1 June 18, 2009
Lu et al. (“Lu”) US 2014/0327774 A1 Nov. 6, 2014
Yamaguchi JP 2004-120608 A Apr. 15, 2004

Appeal 2020-005104
Application 15/420,239

4
REJECTIONS
A. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8–10, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Lu, Ahiska, Yamaguchi, and Glass.
B. Claims 3, 14, 15, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Lu, Ahiska, Yamaguchi, Glass, and Ishikawa.
C. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lu, Ahiska, Yamaguchi, Glass, and Diab.
D. Claims 16 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lu, Ahiska, Yamaguchi, Glass, Ishikawa, and Diab.
E. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8–10, and 13 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claim 17 of commonly owned Lu ’014, Lu, Yamaguchi, Ahiska, and
Glass.
F. Claim 3 stands rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of
commonly owned Lu ’014, Lu, Yamaguchi, Ahiska, Glass, and Ishikawa.
G. Claim 7 stands rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of
commonly owned Lu ’014, Lu, Yamaguchi, Ahiska, Glass, and Diab.
H. Claims 14, 15, 17, and 19 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claim 17 of commonly owned Lu ’014, Lu, Yamaguchi, Ahiska, Glass,
and Ishikawa.
I. Claims 16 and 20 stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
Appeal 2020-005104
Application 15/420,239

5
claim 17 of commonly owned Lu ’014, Lu, Yamaguchi, Ahiska, Glass,
Ishikawa, and Diab.
J. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8–10, and 13 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claim 27 of commonly owned Lu ’381, Lu, Yamaguchi, Ahiska, and
Glass.
K. Claim 3 stands rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 26 of
commonly owned Lu ’381, Lu, Yamaguchi, Ahiska, Glass, and Ishikawa.
L. Claim 7 stands rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 26 of
commonly owned Lu ’381, Lu, Yamaguchi, Ahiska, Glass, and Diab.
M. Claims 14, 15, 17, and 19 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claim 26 of commonly owned Lu ’381, Lu, Yamaguchi, Ahiska, Glass,
and Ishikawa.
N. Claims 16 and 20 stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claim 26 of commonly owned Lu ’381, Lu, Yamaguchi, Ahiska, Glass,
Ishikawa, and Diab.

OPINION
§ 103 Rejection—Lu, Ahiska, Yamaguchi, and Glass
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 25; see also
Reply Br. 6) that the combination of Lu, Ahiska, Yamaguchi, and Glass
would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
Appeal 2020-005104
Application 15/420,239

6
limitation “wherein said master camera comprises a respective decryptor for
each slave camera of the at least one slave camera that decrypts the
encrypted image data received from the respective slave camera to derive
decrypted image data from the encrypted image data received from the
respective slave camera.”
The Examiner found that client systems 1a and 1b–1n of Glass, shown
in Figure 6, each having a camera, which communicates with Camera
Certification Authority 30 via authentication server systems 10a and 10b–
10n, correspond to the limitation “a respective decryptor for each slave
camera of the at least one slave camera that decrypts the encrypted image
data received from the respective slave camera to derive decrypted image
data from the encrypted image data received from the respective slave
camera.” (Final Act. 64–65; see also Ans. 105.) In particular, the Examiner
found that “Glass teaches of client systems 1a, 1b, . . . 1n, each containing an
associated camera 4 analogized as slave cameras, that encrypt images for
transmission to respective authentication server systems 10a, 10b, . . . 10n,
that are analogized as respective decryptor” and “authentication server
systems request respective public key of particular client system from the
Camera Certification Authority 30 using each respective camera’s serial
number to decrypt encrypted image data.” (Ans. 105.) We do not agree
with the Examiner’s findings.
Independent claim 1 recites “encrypted image data” (emphasis added).
One technical definition of “encrypt” is “[t]o encode (scramble) information
in such a way that it is unreadable to all but those individuals possessing the
key to the code.” MICROSOFT® COMPUTER DICTIONARY 192 (5th ed. 2002).
Appeal 2020-005104
Application 15/420,239

7
Such an interpretation is consistent with Appellant’s Specification, which
discloses the following:
On a four camera SVS [surround view system], the master
camera includes a decryptor that decrypts the image data of three
slave cameras (that has been encrypted by the respective slave
camera after image signal processing and before communication
to the master camera) and generates a view out of these three
slave image signals and its own captured image signal.
(Spec. ¶ 18 (emphasis added).)
On a six camera SVS, the master camera decrypts the encrypted
data received from five slave cameras and generates a view out
of these five slave images signal and its own captured image
signal, such as shown in FIG. 6. For every configuration, having
one master camera instead of an ECU and at least one slave
camera, one pair of Ethernet PHYs, one decryption block, and
one encryption block can be spared, which reduces system costs
and enhances the image quality.
(Id. ¶ 19 (emphasis added).)
Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification, we interpret the limitation “encrypted” as encoding
information in such a way that it is unreadable to all but those individuals
possessing the key to the code.
Glass relates to “the transmission of biometric data from a camera or
other sensor to a server at a remote location over a network in a secure
manner.” (¶ 3.) In particular, Glass “provide secure transmission and
subsequent authentication of biometric data for use in a client-server scheme
in which the biometric data is transferred from one computer over an
unsecured network to another computer for identification or verification of a
user.” (¶ 14.) Figure 2 of Glass illustrates client system 1, which includes
host computer 2 connected to imaging system 4 with camera 6 for collecting
Appeal 2020-005104
Application 15/420,239

8
biometric data, in which “biometric data will be an analog representation of
an image which is then digitized and stored for later transfer” via network 9
to authentication server 10. (¶ 31.) Glass further explains that “[a]
cryptographic technique is employed inside the code generator to create a
digital signature for each frame of image data acquired by the camera [6]
and optics” (¶ 34) and “[t]he digital signature of the data can be sent to
another system (i.e. the authentication server) along with the original data”
(¶ 36).
Figure 6 of Glass illustrates several client systems 1a and 1b-1n
connected to authentication servers systems 10a and 10b-10n, and Camera
Certification Authority 30. (¶ 40.) Glass explains that Camera Certification
Authority 30 holds all public keys for all cameras, such that “[t]he public
key would be used to determine whether a particular camera signed the
image received by the server using that same camera’s internal private key”
and “[s]ince the image would have been signed inside the camera using the
private key, the authentication server is able to use the public key to
determine irrefutably that the given camera produced the image in question.”
(Id.)
Although the Examiner cited to client systems 1a and 1b-1n,
authentication servers systems 10a and 10b-10n, and Camera Certification
Authority 30, as illustrated in Figure 6 of Glass, the Examiner has provided
insufficient evidence to support a finding that Glass teaches the limitation “a
respective decryptor for each slave camera of the at least one slave camera
that decrypts the encrypted image data received from the respective slave
camera to derive decrypted image data from the encrypted image data
received from the respective slave camera.” Even if the Examiner is correct
Appeal 2020-005104
Application 15/420,239

9
that client systems 1a and 1b-1n of Glass correspond to the limitation “slave
camera,” as recited in claim 1, and authentication servers systems 10a and
10b-10n correspond to the “decryptor,” as recited in claim 1, the image data
of Glass is not encrypted. Instead, only the digital signature associated with
the image data of Glass is encrypted. (¶¶ 34, 36.) In particular, as discussed
previously, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “encrypted image data”
consistent with the Specification would not encompass the digital signature
of Glass for each frame of image data, because the image data itself is not
encoded.
Therefore, on this record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that
Glass teaches the limitation “a respective decryptor for each slave camera of
the at least one slave camera that decrypts the encrypted image data received
from the respective slave camera to derive decrypted image data from the
encrypted image data received from the respective slave camera.”
Moreover, the Examiner’s application of Lu, Ahiska, and Yamaguchi does
not cure the deficiencies of Glass.
Accordingly, we find Appellant’s following arguments persuasive of
Examiner error:
Glass, such as at the cited paragraphs of [0034], [0035],
[0039], and [0040], discloses a system for transmitting and
authenticating biometric information over a network.
Specifically, Glass discloses including a digital signature with
the data and sending the data and signature to an authentication
server. The authentication server verifies the signature to verify
the authenticity of the data. That is, the cited paragraphs discuss
a digital signature that provides verification of who sends the
data (i.e., authentication) and not privacy (i.e., encryption).
Moreover, there is absolutely no disclosure or suggestion of a
master camera that receives this biometric data, let alone
encrypted image data. Instead, the authentication server is merely
Appeal 2020-005104
Application 15/420,239

10
a remote server tasked with authenticating the received
information.
(Appeal Br. 25; see also Reply Br. 6.)
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Claims 2, 6, 8–10, and 13 depend from claim 1. We do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 6, 8–10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.

§ 103 Rejection—Lu, Ahiska, Yamaguchi, Glass, and Ishikawa
Claim 3 depends from independent claim 1. Independent claims 14
and 19 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to claim 1,
and claims 15 and 17 depend from claim 14. Ishikawa was cited by the
Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 3, 14, 15, 17, and 19.
(Final Act. 68–82.) However, the Examiner’s application of Ishikawa does
not cure the above noted deficiencies of Lu, Ahiska, Yamaguchi, and Glass.

§ 103 Rejection—Lu, Ahiska, Yamaguchi, Glass, and Diab
Claim 7 depends from independent claim 1. Diab was cited by the
Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 7. (Final Act. 82–83.)
However, the Examiner’s application of Diab does not cure the above noted
deficiencies of Lu, Ahiska, Yamaguchi, and Glass.

§ 103 Rejection—Lu, Ahiska, Yamaguchi, Glass, Ishikawa, and Diab
Claims 16 and 20 depend from independent claims 14 and 19.
Ishikawa and Diab were cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional
features of claims 16 and 20. (Final Act. 83–85.) However, the Examiner’s
Appeal 2020-005104
Application 15/420,239

11
application of Ishikawa and Diab does not cure the above noted deficiencies
of Lu, Ahiska, Yamaguchi, and Glass.

Double Patenting Rejections
We do not sustain the rejections of claims 1–3, 6–10, 13–17, 19, and
20 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting for the same reasons discussed previously with respect to the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8–10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lu,
Ahiska, Yamaguchi, and Glass.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 6–10, 13–17, 19, and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 6–10, 13–17, 19, and
20 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting is reversed.

DECISION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6, 8–
10, 13
103 Lu, Ahiska,
Yamaguchi, Glass
1, 2, 6, 8–
10, 13
3, 14, 15,
17, 19
103 Lu, Ahiska,
Yamaguchi, Glass,
Ishikawa
3, 14, 15,
17, 19
7 103 Lu, Ahiska,
Yamaguchi, Glass,
Diab
7
Appeal 2020-005104
Application 15/420,239

12
16, 20 103 Lu, Ahiska,
Yamaguchi, Glass,
Ishikawa, Diab
16, 20
1, 2, 6, 8–
10, 13
Lu ’014, Lu,
Yamaguchi,
Ahiska, Glass/
Nonstatutory
Double Patenting
1, 2, 6, 8–
10, 13
3 Lu ’014, Lu,
Yamaguchi,
Ahiska, Glass,
Ishikawa/
Nonstatutory
Double Patenting
3
7 Lu ’014, Lu,
Yamaguchi,
Ahiska, Glass,
Diab/Nonstatutory
Double Patenting
7
14, 15, 17,
19
Lu ’014, Lu,
Yamaguchi,
Ahiska, Glass,
Ishikawa/
Nonstatutory
Double Patenting
14, 15, 17,
19
16, 20 Lu ’014, Lu,
Yamaguchi,
Ahiska, Glass,
Ishikawa, Diab/
Nonstatutory
Double Patenting
16, 20
1, 2, 6, 8–
10, 13
Lu ’381, Lu,
Yamaguchi,
Ahiska, Glass/
Nonstatutory
Double Patenting
1, 2, 6, 8–
10, 13
Appeal 2020-005104
Application 15/420,239

13
3 Lu ’381, Lu,
Yamaguchi,
Ahiska, Glass,
Ishikawa/
Nonstatutory
Double Patenting
3
7 Lu ’381, Lu,
Yamaguchi,
Ahiska, Glass,
Diab/Nonstatutory
Double Patenting
7
14, 15, 17,
19
Lu ’381, Lu,
Yamaguchi,
Ahiska, Glass,
Ishikawa/
Nonstatutory
Double Patenting
14, 15, 17,
19
16, 20 Lu ’381, Lu,
Yamaguchi,
Ahiska, Glass,
Ishikawa, Diab/
Nonstatutory
Double Patenting
16, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 6–10,
13–17, 19,
20

REVERSED