Andreas Enz et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 11, 2021

2020000864 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 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.
14/725,648 05/29/2015 Andreas Enz 6240-6/367618 4970
27799 7590 06/11/2021
COZEN O''CONNOR
3WTC, 175 Greenwich Street
55th Floor
NEW YORK, NY 10007
EXAMINER
FEREJA, SAMUEL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/11/2021 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):
patentdocket@cozen.com
patentsecretary@cozen.com
patentsorter@cozen.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ANDREAS ENZ, SIMON DEFFNER, and
WERNER LANG
________________

Appeal 2020-000864
Application 14/725,648
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–10, and 12–17. Claims 2 and 11
are canceled. Appeal Br. 13, 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as LANG-MEKRA NORTH AMERICA,
LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000864
Application 14/725,648
2

SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to providing an indirect
view around a commercial vehicle using “a first image capture unit oriented
such that an angle of view of the first image capture unit is directed in a first
directional component opposite the main driving direction of the vehicle”
and a “second image capture . . . having at least one sensor device oriented
such that the angle of view of the second image capture unit is directed in a
second directional component in the main driving direction of the vehicle.”
Abstract.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
(disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added)
1. A vehicle system for providing indirect view around a
commercial vehicle, the system comprising:
a first image capture unit oriented such that an angle of view of
the first image capture unit is directed in a first direction
comprising a directional component opposite to the main
driving direction of the vehicle, the first image capture unit
having an optical axis;
a second image capture unit disposed at a distance L with
respect to a vehicle side surface, the second image capture unit
having at least one sensor device comprising at least one of a
camera device and an image sensor and oriented such that an
optical axis of the camera device or image sensor of the second
image capture unit is directed in a second direction and the
angle of view of the second image capture unit is directed in the
second direction, the second direction comprising a directional
component in the main driving direction of the vehicle; and
a calculating unit receiving image data from at least the second
image capture unit and providing information extracted from
the received image data to a vehicle assistance device and/or an
autonomous vehicle guidance device and/or providing image
data to a display device within a view of a driver of the vehicle,
Appeal 2020-000864
Application 14/725,648
3

[1] wherein the first and the second image capture units are
provided in a single housing and the optical axes of the first
and second image capture units are directed opposite to each
other in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Okamoto et al. (“Okamoto”) US 2003/0021490 A1 Jan. 30, 2003
Wagner et al. (“Wagner”) US 2009/0284599 A1 Nov. 19, 2009
Schofield et al. (“Schofield”) US 2013/0250046 A1 Sept. 26, 2013
Tanuki et al. (“Tanuki”) US 2015/0222858 A1 Aug. 6, 2015
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–9, 12, and 14–17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Tanuki, Okamoto, and Wagner. Final Act. 4–11.
The Examiner rejects claims 10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Tanuki, Okamoto, Wagner, and Schofield. Final Act. 11–12.
ADOPTION OF EXAMINER’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Except as detailed below, we agree with and adopt as our own the
Examiner’s findings as set forth in the Answer and in the Final Action from
which this appeal was taken, and we concur with the Examiner’s
conclusions. We have considered Appellant’s arguments, but we do not find
them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Tanuki’s use of image
capturing devices that capture different areas around a dump truck teaches or
Appeal 2020-000864
Application 14/725,648
4

suggests first and second image capturing devices. Final Act. 4–5 (citing,
e.g., Tanuki Fig. 5). The Examiner acknowledges that “Tanuki does not
explicitly disclose wherein the first and the second image capture units are
provided in a single housing and the optical axes of the first and second
image capture units are directed opposite to each other in the longitudinal
direction of the vehicle.” Id. at 6. Thus, the Examiner relies on Okamoto’s
paired cameras and Wagner’s housing having multiple image capturing
sensors to teach or suggest modifying Tanuki in the manner of claim
recitation [1], “wherein the first and the second image capture units are
provided in a single housing and the optical axes of the first and second
image capture units are directed opposite to each other in the longitudinal
direction of the vehicle.” Id. at 6–7 (citing Okamoto ¶¶ 29, 104, Fig. 19A;
Wagner ¶ 37, Fig. 3A).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because each of Okamoto’s
individual cameras is provided in its own camera housing. Appeal Br. 8;
Reply Br. 4. The Examiner, however, correctly finds that Wagner’s housing
having multiple image capturing sensors teaches or suggests providing first
and second image capture units in a single housing. Final Act. 7 (citing
Wagner ¶ 37, Fig. 3A).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Okamoto’s paired
cameras are “directed in an angled manner with respect to the vehicle”
rather than being directed opposite to each other in a longitudinal direction
of a vehicle. Appeal Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 5. Appellant argues that Wagner
does not cure the alleged deficiency of Okamoto because, although
Appellant acknowledges Wagner teaches a camera that is pointed back
(Reply Br. 5), Appellant argues that in Wagner, “all of the sensors, in all of
Appeal 2020-000864
Application 14/725,648
5

the disclosed embodiments, are arranged orthogonal to each other; NOT
directed opposite to each other in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle”
(Appeal Br. 9).
We agree with Appellant that neither Okamoto nor Wagner discloses
first and second image capture units directed opposite to each other in a
longitudinal direction of a vehicle, however the Examiner’s findings show
that Tankuki teaches or suggests the claimed placement and direction.
Specifically, Tankuki illustrates image capturing devices capturing both an
image area in a front area 11C and an image area in a rear area 16C. See
Tankuki Fig. 5 (cited in Final Act. 4–5). An artisan of ordinary skill would
thus have recognized that an image capturing device could be added to a
housing to capture images in the front of a vehicle, not just the rear of a
vehicle, particularly given that Wagner teaches a sensor with a wide field of
view 14 that includes a significant forward-facing component. See Wagner
Fig. 6.
Appellant further contends “that the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness can only be achieved with hindsight reconstruction of the
invention by piecing together separate prior art elements using the claimed
invention as a blueprint.” Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2–3. Appellant’s argument
is not persuasive, however, because the Examiner’s rejection relies on the
“combination of familiar elements according to known methods” that “does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Appellant also argues that modifying Okamoto,
such that the optical axes of the cameras in a pair [are] directed
opposite to each other in the longitudinal direction of the
vehicle . . . would prevent the pair of cameras from meeting the
Appeal 2020-000864
Application 14/725,648
6

object of Okamoto to have a total viewing angle of 180° for
each pair, thereby rendering Okamoto unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose.
Appeal Br. 9. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because Okamoto
teaches that even a single camera can provide a sufficiently wide visual
field. See Okamoto ¶¶ 107, 125 (noting that a fisheye lens can provide a
camera with a visual angle of approximately 180 degrees).
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Tanuki, Okamoto, and Wagner teaches or suggests recitation [1].
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim
1, and claims 3–10 and 12–17, which Appellant argues are patentable for
similar reasons. Appeal Br. 10.
CONCLUSION
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–9, 12,
14–17
103 Tanuki, Okamoto,
Wagner
1, 3–9,
12, 14–17

10, 13 103 Tanuki, Okamoto,
Wagner, Schofield
10, 13
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–10,
12–17

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking 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