ALON, Yaniv

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 31, 2019

12748416 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2019)

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.
12/748,416 03/28/2010 Yaniv ALON 83.1US 5213
116228 7590 10/31/2019
Dr. Hanan Farber Patent Agent Ltd.
7 Har Nevo Street
Hashmonaim, 7312700
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
PRINCE, JESSICA MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2019 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):
aliza@farberpatents.com
allan@farberpatents.com
benny@farberpatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YANIV ALON
____________

Appeal 2019-000917
Application 12/748,416
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1–3, 6–9, 23–26, 28, 31, 35–37, 39,
and 40 which constitute all the claims pending in this application. App. Br.
3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant states Roadmetric Ltd., Jerusalem, Israel, is the
real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 14, 2018, “App. Br.”), the Reply Brief
(filed November 12, 2018, “Reply. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
Appeal 2019-000917
Application 12/748,416

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to systems and methods comprising a camera array
for detecting and recording real-time law violation. See Abstract.
Invention
Claims 1, and 25 are independent. An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of Claim 1, which is reproduced below.
1. A system mountable in a host vehicle, the system
comprising:
at least four cameras: a left-looking camera, a right-
looking camera, a forward-looking camera and a backward-
looking camera,
wherein fields-of-view of the left and right looking
cameras are substantially wider than fields-of-view of the
forward-looking and backward-looking cameras;
wherein the fields-of-view of the left-looking camera, the
right-looking camera, the forward-looking camera and the
backward-looking camera are horizontal angular extents of
respective scenes, as imaged onto respective image sensors of
the cameras;
a processor configured to operationally control said
cameras to acquire and store in memory a plurality of images
acquired by said cameras when mounted in the host vehicle,
wherein the images stored in said memory acquired from
at least one of the forward-looking camera and the backward-
looking camera are used for identification of a license plate of a
target vehicle,

September 19, 2018, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed May 10, 2018, “Final
Act.”), and the Specification (filed March 28, 2010, “Spec.”) for their
respective details.
Appeal 2019-000917
Application 12/748,416

3
wherein the images stored in said memory acquired from
at least one of the left-looking camera and the right-looking
camera are used for tracking the progress of the target vehicle
while continuously recording a traffic law violation by the
target vehicle between positions behind the host vehicle, along
side the host vehicle and in front of the host vehicle.

References and Rejections
Furuta
Higgins
US 5,959,555
US 2004/0252193 A1
Sep. 28, 1999
Dec. 16, 2004
Watanabe US 2007/0200933 A1 Aug. 30, 2007
Brown
Englander
Jelinek
US 2008/0048886 A1
US 2008/0122597 A1
US 2010/0033677 A1
Feb. 28, 2008
May 29, 2008
Feb. 11, 2010
Wirsz US 2010/0149334 A1 June 17, 2010

1. Claims 1, 3, 6–8, 25, 26, 28, 31, 36, and 37 stand rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Brown, Furuta, and Wirsz.
Final Act. 7.
2. Claims 2 and 9 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Brown, Furuta, Wirsz, and Englander3. Final Act. 7.

3 The Final Action cites neither a patent or publication number, nor a prior
art date for Englander, we find the Englander reference cited on form PTO
892, mailed Sept.16, 2016.
Appeal 2019-000917
Application 12/748,416

4
3. Claim 35 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Brown, Furuta, Wirsz, and Jelinek. Final Act. 7.
4. Claims 39 and 40 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Brown, Furuta, Wirsz, and Higgins (US 2004/0252193;
Dec. 16, 2004). Final Act. 8.
5. Claim 23 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Brown, Furuta, Wirsz, Higgins, and Watanabe (US
2007/0200933; Aug. 30, 2007). Final Act. 8.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1–3, 6–9, 23–26, 28, 31,
35–37, 39, and 40 in light of Appellant’s arguments. We consider
Appellant’s arguments as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 5–12
and the Reply Brief, pages 3–6. For the reasons that follow, we are
persuaded the Examiner has erred.

CLAIMS 1–3, 6–9, 23–26, 28, 31, 35–37, 39 AND 40: OBVIOUSNESS OVER
OVER BROWN, FURUTA, WIRSZ, ENGLANDER, JELINEK, HIGGINS AND
WATANABE.
The Final Action presents a bare statement of rejection, but makes no
findings of fact, not even by reference to a prior action(s). See Final Act. 7.
Independent Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “wherein fields-of-view of the
left and right looking cameras are substantially wider than fields-of-view of
the forward-looking and backward-looking cameras.” Independent Claim 25
contains commensurate recitations.
Appeal 2019-000917
Application 12/748,416

5
Appellant contends the Examiner finds the above limitation is not
taught by Brown, but is taught by Furuta. App. Br. 6 (citing Non-Final
Action mailed November 15, 2017). Appellant argues Furuta discloses the
fields of view of the left- and right-looking cameras are narrower than the
forward- and rearward-looking cameras, contrary to the claims. Id., 7 (re-
asserting the argument of February 13, 2018).
Furuta discloses image sensors 11 and 12 facing to the left and right
of the vehicle and image sensor 13 facing to the front of the vehicle. Furuta,
col. 4, ll. 32–35. Contrary to the claims, Furuta discloses image sensors 11
and 12 (side-facing) each have a 70° field-of-view which is much narrower
that the 140° field-of-view of forward-facing sensor 13. Id., ll. 36–39.
The Examiner further finds Furuta discloses that, facing to the side
opposite the steering wheel, a wide-angle imaging device may be installed.
Ans. 6 (citing Furuta, col. 2, ll. 37–44). However, Furuta fails to disclose
the extent of the field-of-view of this additional imager, nor does the
Examiner find (with evidence) why a person of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that “wide-angle” implies an angle greater than the 140°
angle of the forward-facing imager. “[T]he PTAB must make the necessary
findings and have an adequate ‘evidentiary basis for its findings.’” In re
Nuvasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting In re Lee, 277 F.3d
1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
The Examiner finds “the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,
‘the front and back looking cameras 50a and 50d have a narrower FOV in
order to be able to detect a target vehicle from longer distance’) are not
recited in the rejected claim(s).” Ans. 7. The Examiner cites In re Van
Appeal 2019-000917
Application 12/748,416

6
Geuns,4 for the proposition that whereas, the claims are interpreted in light
of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the
claims. Id.
Contrary to the Examiner, independent Claim 1 recites “wherein
fields-of-view of the left and right looking cameras are substantially wider
than fields-of-view of the forward-looking and backward-looking cameras”
and independent Claim 25 contains commensurate limitations. Because the
claims contain the accused recitation, the Examiner’s citation to In re Van
Geuns is inapt.
The Examiner does not cite any further art to teach the discussed
limitation. Because the prior art fails to teach at least one limitation recited
fin each independent claim, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1–
3, 6–9, 23–26, 28, 31, 35–37, 39, and 40.

4 In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Appeal 2019-000917
Application 12/748,416

7
CONCLUSION
The rejection of Claims 1–3, 6–9, 23–26, 28, 31, 35–37, 39 and 40
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED.

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 6–8,
25, 26, 28,
31, 36, and
37
103 Brown, Furuta, and
Wirsz
-- 1, 3, 6–8,
25, 26, 28,
31, 36, and
37
2 and 9 103 Brown, Furuta,
Wirsz, and
Englander
-- 2 and 9
35 103 Brown, Furuta,
Wirsz, and Jelinek
-- 35
39 and 40 103 Brown, Furuta,
Wirsz, and Higgins
-- 39 and 40
23 103 Brown, Furuta,
Wirsz, Higgins,
and Watanabe
-- 23
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 6–9,
23–26, 28,
31, 35–37,
39 and 40

REVERSED