MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 21, 2021

2020002056 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 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.
15/964,338 04/27/2018 Yuesheng Lu 262366-430676/
MAG04 P3337
9060
153508 7590 07/21/2021
HONIGMAN LLP/MAGNA
650 TRADE CENTRE WAY
SUITE 200
KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402
EXAMINER
FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/21/2021 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 YUESHENG LU
____________

Appeal 2020-002056
Application 15/964,338
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–26, all of the pending claims. Final Act. 1.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 “Appellant” refers 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.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
July 24, 2019) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed January 17, 2020); the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed January 28, 2019) and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 21, 2019); and the
Specification (“Spec.,” filed April 27, 2018). Rather than repeat the
Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to
these documents.
Appeal 2020-002056
Application 15/964,338
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed assemblies and methods “relate[] to vehicle
vision systems, and more particularly, to outward facing vehicle cameras for
vehicle vision systems.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Appellant’s Figures 2 and 3 are reproduced below.

Figure 2 depicts “a front view of the vehicle indicia assembly or camera
assembly,” and Figure 3 depicts a side view of the assembly of Figure 2. Id.
¶¶ 11, 12. In Figure 2, “the vehicle indicia assembly 14 includes a vehicle
emblem or indicia or emblem element 18 and a vehicle camera 20.” Id.
¶ 24. For example, “the graphical portion [22]3 is the name of a fictitious
automaker, ‘Falcon’, in script.” Id.
The Specification discloses:
The vehicle camera 20 is preferably a video camera
mounted to the vehicle emblem or indicia element 18. The
vehicle camera is positioned at an opening or passageway 26 in
the vehicle emblem or indicia element 18, and faces outwards to

3 The Specification misidentifies this portion as “25,” instead of “22.”
Later, however, the Specification identifies “lens barrel 25.” Id. ¶ 28.
Appeal 2020-002056
Application 15/964,338
3

capture image data representative of a scene exterior or outside
the vehicle 10.
Id. ¶ 26. The Specification further discloses:
As can be seen in FIG. 2, the opening 26 in the vehicle
emblem or indicia element 18 does not intersect or run through
the graphical portion [22]. That is, the opening 26 does not
detrimentally affect the appearance of the graphical portion [22].
In this example, the opening only penetrates the background
portion 24 of the vehicle emblem or indicia element 18.
Id. ¶ 27 (emphasis added).
Appellant’s Figure 7 is reproduced below.

Figure 7 “shows a vehicle indicia assembly or camera assembly 54 having a
light-transmitting window 56 established at the indicia element.” Id. ¶ 42.
Vehicle indicia assembly 54 substantially similar to vehicle indicia
assembly 14, depicted in Figures 2 and 3. Id. However, with respect to
Figure 7, the Specification discloses:
The light-transmitting window 56 can have the shape of a flat
disc. Since, in this example, the curvature of the vehicle indicia
element 18 at or around the opening 26 is slight, the flat light-
Appeal 2020-002056
Application 15/964,338
4

transmitting window 56 approximates the curvature of the
vehicle indicia element at the opening. In other examples, the
light-transmitting window 56 can be given positive curvature.
The optical effect of the light-transmitting window 56 can be
compensated for by the optical design of the vehicle camera 20.
The light-transmitting window 56 can be considered an optical
element of the lens assembly 36.
Id. ¶ 43 (emphases added).
As noted above, claims 1–26 are pending. Claims 1, 21, and 24 are
independent. Appeal Br. 45 (claim 1), 48–49 (claims 21 and 24) (Claims
App.). Claims 2–20 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, claims 22
and 23 depend directly from claim 21, and claims 25 and 26 depend directly
from claim 24. Id. at 45–50.
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is
illustrative.
1. A vehicle indicia assembly suitable for use on a vehicle, the
vehicle indicia assembly comprising:
a vehicle indicia element, the vehicle indicia element
having an indicia surface with indicia established thereat,
wherein the vehicle indicia element has an attaching surface
opposite the indicia surface;
wherein the attaching surface of the vehicle indicia
element is configured to be mounted at a vehicle so that, when
the vehicle indicia element is mounted at the vehicle, the indicia
surface faces outwards away from the vehicle;
wherein the vehicle indicia element has a light
transmitting portion, and wherein the light transmitting portion
comprises a light transmitting plastic element having an outer
surface curvature that corresponds with the indicia surface
around the light transmitting portion;
a vehicle camera disposed at the attaching surface of the
vehicle indicia element, wherein the vehicle camera is positioned
at the vehicle indicia element and behind the light transmitting
portion so that the vehicle camera views through the light
Appeal 2020-002056
Application 15/964,338
5

transmitting portion and is operable to capture image data; and
wherein, when the vehicle indicia assembly is mounted at
the vehicle, the vehicle camera is disposed at the vehicle and
views through the light transmitting portion of the vehicle indicia
element and is operable to capture image data representative of a
scene exterior the vehicle.
Id. at 45 (emphases added). Claims 21 and 24 recite limitations
corresponding to the disputed limitations of claim 1. Id. at 48–49; see Final
Act. 7–9 (rejecting claim 21), 9–10 (rejecting claim 24).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name4 Reference Publ’d/Issued Filed
Bos US 6,757,109 B2 June 29, 2004 Dec. 6, 2001
Kweon US 8,553,069 B2 Oct. 8, 2013 Jan 21, 2010
Forgue US 8,922,655 B2 Dec. 30, 2014 Oct. 28, 2011
The Examiner rejects (1) claims 1–13 and 16–26 as obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Forgue and Bos (Final
Act. 3–10) and (2) claims 14 and 15 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
the combined teachings of Forgue, Bos, and Kweon (id. at 10–11).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). Because we determine that reversal of the rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as of independent claims 21 and 24, is
dispositive, except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss the merits of

4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-002056
Application 15/964,338
6

the rejections of claims 2–20, 22, 23, 25, and 26 further herein. We address
the rejections below.
ANALYSIS
1. Non-Obviousness of Claim 1 Over Forgue and Bos
As noted above, the Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Forgue and Bos. Final Act. 3–5. In
particular, the Examiner finds that Forgue teaches or suggests a majority of
the limitations recited in claim 1. Id. at 3–4. Further, the Examiner finds,
Forgue also discloses that the light transmitting portion
comprises a light transmitting element having an outer surface
curvature that corresponds with the indicia surface around the
light transmitting portion (Forgue: Fig. 7, camera assembly
approximates the outer edge curvature of the emblem), but
Forgue does not specifically disclose that the light transmitting
element is plastic.
Final Act. 4 (emphases added). The Examiner finds, however, “Bos
discloses a plastic lens system for a vehicle imaging system.” Id. (citing
Bos, 4:43–50). In addition, the Examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in
the relevant art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Forgue
and Bos to achieve the assemblies of claim 1. Id. at 5.
Appeal 2020-002056
Application 15/964,338
7

Forgue’s Figure 7 is reproduced below.

Figure 7 depicts “a cross-sectional view of the grille assembly taken along
the line 7-7 in FIG. 6, showing the grille, the camera support, the camera and
the emblem in accordance with one embodiment.” Forgue, 2:11–14. As
depicted in Figure 7, “[t]he camera support 22 is basically a bracket that is
installed between the emblem mounting portion 44 of the grill 20 and the
emblem 26.” Id. at 4:49–52 (emphasis added). Forgue explains:
The camera support has an attachment portion and an extension
portion. The attachment portion is sandwiched between the
emblem mounting portion of the vehicle grille and the inner
surface of the emblem. The attachment portion includes at least
one opening and one of the first and second mounting structures
extends through the at least one opening of the attachment
portion. The camera is fixedly mounted to the extension portion
of the camera support.
Id., Abstract (emphasis added). Thus, “when the camera support 22 is fully
installed, the extension portion 72 extends rearward from the attachment
Appeal 2020-002056
Application 15/964,338
8

portion 70 to a location rearward of the forwardly facing surface 50 of the
emblem mounting portion 44, as shown in FIG. 7.” Id. at 5:3–7 (emphasis
added). Thus, the Examiner finds “the camera support 22 may be
considered as reading on the indicia element of the claim, while the
emblem 26 may be considered as reading on the indicia surface of the
claim.” Ans. 13.
Appellant contends:
Claim 1 clearly recites two surfaces of the vehicle indicia
element: an indicia surface and an attaching surface. With respect
to the indicia surface, claim 1 recites “an indicia surface with
indicia established thereat.” Thus, one of the surfaces of the
claimed indicia element (the indicia surface) has an indicia
established thereat. Claim 1 further recites “the vehicle indicia
element has a light transmitting portion . . . compris[ing] a light
transmitting plastic element having an outer surface curvature
that corresponds with the indicia surface around the light
transmitting portion.” In other words, a portion of the claimed
indicia element is light transmitting. That light-transmitting
portion comprises a light transmitting plastic element. And the
indicia surface (i.e., the surface of the indicia element with
indicia established thereat) is around the claimed light-
transmitting portion.
Reply Br. 3–4 (additional italics added); see Appeal Br. 7. Appellant further
contends:
Forgue also discloses a camera lens 24 mounted separate from
and below the emblem 26 and facing downward, away from the
emblem, obviating the need for transmitting light through a
portion of the emblem 26. Indeed, Forgue is wholly silent on a
light transmitting portion of the emblem 26. Therefore, Forgue’s
emblem 26 cannot reasonably be construed as reading on an
indicia element having a light-transmitting portion with an
indicia surface around the light-transmitting portion, as claimed
(collectively and in combination with the other claim elements).
Reply Br. 5 (emphases added). Thus, Appellant contends Forgue does not
Appeal 2020-002056
Application 15/964,338
9

teach or suggest, “the vehicle camera is positioned at the vehicle indicia
element and behind the light transmitting portion so that the vehicle camera
views through the light transmitting portion” and “the light transmitting
portion . . . having an outer surface curvature that corresponds with the
indicia surface around the light transmitting portion.” Appeal Br. 45
(Claims App.) (emphases added); see Reply Br. 5–7; Appeal Br. 23. We
agree with Appellant.
Forgue’s Figure 10 is reproduced below.

Figure 10 depicts “an exploded perspective view of the partial assembly
depicted in FIG. 9 showing the camera support, the camera and the emblem
separated from one another in accordance with one embodiment.” Forgue,
Appeal 2020-002056
Application 15/964,338
10

2:22–25. Forgue’s camera 24 is mounted on extension 72 extending below
and rearward from camera support 22 and is fixed to extension 72 by
bracket 100. Id. at 6:38–7:13. We agree with Appellant that Forgue’s
camera is not positioned behind a light transmitting portion that is
surrounded by the indicia surface. Reply Br. 5–6.
Because these deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 are
dispositive, we do not reach Appellant’s other challenges to the rejection of
claim 1. Consequently, we are persuaded that the Examiner errs in rejecting
claim 1, and we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1.
2. The Remaining Claims
As noted above, Appellant challenges the rejection of independent
claims 21 and 24 for substantially the same reasons as claim 1. Appeal
Br. 1–3; see Final Act. 7–9 (rejecting claim 21), 9–10 (rejecting claim 24).
Thus, we also are persuaded that the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 21
and 24 for substantially the same reasons set forth above with respect to
claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 21
and 24.
Each of claims 2–20, 22, 23, 25, and 26 depends directly or indirectly
from independent claim 1, 21, or 24. Appeal Br. 45–50 (Claims App.).
Moreover, the Examiner does not find that Kweon teaches or suggests the
missing limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 10–11. Because we are
persuaded the Examiner errs with respect to the obviousness rejection of
claim 1, as well as of claims 21 and 24, we also are persuaded the Examiner
errs with respect to the obviousness rejections of claims 2–20, 22, 23, 25,
and 26. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 2–20, 22,
Appeal 2020-002056
Application 15/964,338
11

23, 25, and 26. Consequently, we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s
separate challenges to the dependent claims. See id. at 29–41.
DECISION
1. The Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Forgue and Bos, alone or in
combination with those of Kweon.
2. Thus, on this record, claims 1–26 are not unpatentable.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1–26.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–13, 16–
26
103 Forgue, Bos

1–13, 16–
26
14, 15 103 Forgue, Bos,
Kweon
14, 15
Overall
Outcome
1–26

REVERSED