MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 29, 2020

15134440 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 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.
15/134,440 04/21/2016 Benjamin May MAG04- P2733-423985 5716
153508 7590 10/29/2020
HONIGMAN LLP/MAGNA
650 TRADE CENTRE WAY
SUITE 200
KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402
EXAMINER
NIRJHAR, NASIM NAZRUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2020 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 BENJAMIN MAY
____________________

Appeal 2019-003557
Application 15/134,440
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from a Final
Rejection of claims 1–20. Appeal Br. 6. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest is Magna Electronics Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003557
Application 15/134,440

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis,
formatting, and bracketed material added):
1. A vision system of a vehicle, said vision system comprising:
[A.] a camera disposed at a vehicle and having a field of view
exterior of the vehicle;
[B.] wherein said camera comprises an imager having a
pixelated imaging array having a plurality of
photosensing elements;
[C.] wherein said camera comprises a processor operable to
process image data captured by said imager;
[D.] a video display screen operable to display video images
derived from image data captured by said imager;
[E.] wherein said processor generates a graphic overlay for
display with the video images at said video display
screen; and
[F.] wherein, responsive to processing by said processor of
image data captured by said imager, said processor
calibrates the camera relative to the vehicle by adapting
the image data utilizing a spatial transform engine to
adapt the image data orientation and position relative to
the generated graphic overlay to a corrected orientation
and position relative to the generated graphic overlay.

Appeal 2019-003557
Application 15/134,440

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:2
Name Reference Date
Fant US 4,835,532 May 30, 1989
Callahan US 6,396,473 B1 May 28, 2002
Vico US 2012/0320209 A1 Dec. 20, 2012
Krökel US 2016/0221503 A1 Aug. 4, 2016

REJECTIONS
A.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5–7, 8–13, 16, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Vico and
Fant. Final Act. 5–15.
We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. The
contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are determinative as to this
rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the
merit of the § 103 rejection of claims 2, 3, 5–7, 8–13, 16, and 17 further
herein.
B.
The Examiner rejects claims 4, 14, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Vico, Fant, and Callahan.
Final Act. 15–21.
The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Vico, Fant, and Krökel. Final Act.
22–23.

2 Citations are by reference to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-003557
Application 15/134,440

4
The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are determinative as to
these rejections. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not
address the merit of the § 103 rejections of claims 4, 8, 14, 15, and 18–20
further herein.

OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. Appellant’s contentions we discuss
are determinative as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore, Appellant’s
other contentions are not discussed in detail herein.
A.
The Examiner determines as to the above “said processor calibrates”
of claim 1:
wherein, responsive to processing by said processor of image
data captured by said imager, said processor calibrates the
camera relative to the vehicle (Vico [0038] the microcontroller
18 [processor, because communicates with memory with stored
program] includes flash memory shown at 23 in which is stored
the program for carrying out the periodic calibration of the
camera 11. [0043] calibrating the camera 11 after it is installed
in the vehicle 10 provides several advantages. One advantage is
that the overlays 26, 28 applied to the image 25 by the
microcontroller 18 will be properly aligned with the image 25 so
that the driver of the vehicle 10 is provided with accurate
position-related information from the overlays).
Final Act. 6.
Appeal 2019-003557
Application 15/134,440

5
B.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 because:
Vico discloses periodically calibrating a camera.
Specifically, the calibration manager module of Vico calibrates
when “conditions are appropriate” (Vico, ¶ [0048]). Paragraphs
[0050]-[0062] describe what constitutes “appropriate”
conditions to trigger calibration. For example, when “a valid
calibration has not taken place already on the current day” and
“the outside temperature is within a selected range.” Notably
lacking in the detailed list is any disclosure pertaining to
calibrating the camera responsive to processing image data, as
claimed (collectively and in combination with the other claim
elements). In stark contrast to responding to processing image
data, Vico discloses calibrating “at selected time intervals
regardless of the amount of mileage that has been accumulated
by the vehicle” (Vico, ¶ [0049]).
Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis added).
C.
As articulated by the Federal Circuit, the Examiner’s burden of
proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re
Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“preponderance of the
evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections”).
“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis[.]” In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office has the
initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . .
resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to
supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id.
We conclude the Examiner’s analysis fails to meet this standard
because the Examiner’s determination that Vico teach “wherein, responsive
to processing by said processor of image data captured by said imager, said
Appeal 2019-003557
Application 15/134,440

6
processor calibrates the camera relative to the vehicle” (Final Act. 6
(emphasis added)) is not supported by Vico. Rather, as the Examiner
acknowledges, Vico teaches “[t]he camera 11 is configured to be calibrated
periodically after it has been installed on the vehicle 10.” Ans. 21 (emphasis
added). We determine that “responsive to processing by said processor of
image data captured by said imager” and “periodically” are not the same
thing. Thus, the Examiner’s findings of fact as to the “processor calibrates”
is based on error.
D.
We conclude, consistent with Appellant’s arguments, that there is
insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s finding that Vico
teaches the argued “responsive to . . . said processor calibrates” claim
limitation, as required by claim 1. Therefore, we conclude that there is
insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s final conclusion
that claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.

CONCLUSION
The Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1–20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.
Appeal 2019-003557
Application 15/134,440

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–7, 8–
13, 16, 17
103 Vico, Fant 1–3, 5–7, 8–
13, 16, 17
4, 14, 18–20 103 Vico, Fant,
Callahan
4, 14, 18–20
8, 15 103 Vico, Fant, Krökel 8, 15
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED