Ex Parte Augst

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 14, 2017

13287675 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2017)

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.
13/287,675 11/02/2011 Alexander AUGST 080437.63723US 6059
23911 7590 02/16/2017
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
EXAMINER
SWARTHOUT, BRENT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/16/2017 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):
edocket @ crowell. com
tche @ crowell. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANER AUGST
Appeal 2016-004980
Application 13/287,675
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-004980
Application 13/287,675
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 16—19, 28, and 29. Claims 2—15 and 20-20 have been withdrawn
due to the restriction requirement mailed October 10, 2013 and resulting
election made on November 8, 2013. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). For reasons that follow infra, we affirm the obviousness rejection of
claims 1 and 16—19, and reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 28 and
29.
Appellant’s Disclosed Invention
Appellant’s invention concerns a night-time back up camera, object
detection system, and display for assisting a driver of a vehicle (Title; Spec.
12; Figs. 1 and 2; Abs.).
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claims 1 and 28 under appeal, with emphases added, read
as follows:
1. A method for representing objects of varying visibility
surrounding a vehicle for a user on a display of a display device
from a perspective of an occupant, the surroundings of the
vehicle being at least partially automatically recognizable by
one or more object recognition devices installed in the vehicle,
the method comprising the acts of:
determining, based on one or more criteria, whether
objects recognize the one or more object recognition devices is
a first object classified to be visible to the occupant or a second
object classified to be invisible to the occupant;
displaying, on the display of the display device, a number
of recognized objects in respective positions on the display, the
number of recognized objects comprising at least one first
object and at least one second object, wherein the respective
positions of the number of objects for the display have
2
Appeal 2016-004980
Application 13/287,675
geometrical relationships between the number of objects
corresponding substantially to real geometrical relationships
from the perspective of the occupant by virtue of being shifted
from a perspective of the one or more object recognition
devices to the perspective of the occupant.
28. A display device for representing objects of varying
visibility surrounding a vehicle for a user from a perspective of
an occupant, wherein the surroundings of the vehicle are at least
partially automatically recognizable by one or more object
recognition devices, the display device comprising:
a display;
means for determining, based on one or more criteria,
whether objects recognized by the one or more object
recognition devices is a first object class to be visible to the
occupant or a second object classified to be invisible to
the occupant; and
means for determining respective positions for a number
of recognized objects for the display, the number of recognized
objects comprising at least one first object and at least one
second object, wherein the respective positions of number of
objects for the display have geometrical relationships between
the number of objects corresponding substantially to real
geometrical relationships from the perspective of the occupant
by virtue of being shifted from a perspective of the one or more
object recognition devices to the perspective of the occupant.
Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 16—19, 28, and 29 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Szczerba
(US 8,547,298 B2; issued Oct. 1, 2013), Knoll (US 2006/0164219 Al;
issued July 27, 2006), and Miyahara (US 6,759,949 B2; issued July 6, 2004).
Final Act. 2-4; Ans. 5—6.
3
Appeal 2016-004980
Application 13/287,675
Issues on Appeal
Appellant presents arguments as to claims 1, 28, and 29 as a group
without discussing a specific claim (App. Br. 6—11; Reply Br. 1—6), and
argues claims 16—19 by way of their ultimate dependency upon claim 1
(App. Br. 11). Based on our interpretation of the disputed “wherein” clause
at the end of independent claim 1, and because the means-plus-function
format of remaining independent claims 28 and 29 cause claims 28 and 29 to
have a narrower scope than claim 1, we find Appellant’s arguments in the
briefs persuasive as to claims 28 and 29, but not as to claims 1 and 16—19.1
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6—11)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1—6), the following issues are presented on
appeal:
(1) Does a proper interpretation of representative independent claim 1
require anything more than “displaying, on the display of the display device,
a number of recognized objects in respective positions on the display?” In
other words, does the “wherein” clause at the end of claim 1 require “the
respective positions of the number of objects for the display” actually be
determined and adjusted for, or does it merely describe a natural and
inherent relationship resulting from a known phenomenon (that the spatial
relationship between the driver position and the location of the
camera/sensor on the bumper causes a perspective shift resulting in object
positions on the display being shifted)?
1 Because Appellant relies on the arguments presented for claim 1 as to the
patentability of claims 16—19, which depend from claim 1 and contain the
same base limitations, we select claim 1 as representative of the group of
claims (claims 1 and 16—19).
4
Appeal 2016-004980
Application 13/287,675
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1 and 16—19 as being
obvious because the combination of Szczerba, Knoll, and Miyahara fails to
teach or suggest displaying a number of recognized objects in respective
positions on the display:
[Wjherein the respective positions of the number of
objects for the display have geometrical relationships between
the number of objects corresponding substantially to
real geometrical relationships from the perspective of the
occupant by virtue of being shifted from a perspective of the
one or more object recognition devices to the perspective of the
occupant,
as set forth in representative claim 1?
(3) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 28 and 29 as being
obvious because the combination of Szczerba, Knoll, and Miyahara, and
specifically Miyahara, fails to teach or suggest the “means for determining
respective positions for a number of recognized objects for the display”
recited in claims 28 and 29?
The outcome of the first issue will be determinative of the second and
third issues.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection and response (Final Act.
2-4; Ans. 5—6) in light of Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal Brief (App.
Br. 6—11) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1—6) that the Examiner has erred. We
agree with the Examiner (Ans. 5—6) that the combination of Szczerba, Knoll,
and Miyahara teaches or suggests the subject matter recited in claim 1, and
thus are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 6—11). However,
we find Appellant’s arguments persuasive as to claims 28 and 29.
5
Appeal 2016-004980
Application 13/287,675
Claims 1 and 16—19
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments and conclusions as to
representative independent claim 1 and dependent claims 16—19. With
regard to representative claim 1, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 2—3), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (see Ans. 5—6).
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner as to
representative claim 1 and dependent claims 16—19 grouped therewith, and
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
The “wherein” clause at the end of claim 1 merely describes the
natural and logical relationship resulting from a known phenomenon (that
the spatial relationship between the driver position and the location of the
camera/sensor on the bumper causes a perspective shift resulting in object
positions on the display being shifted). In other words, a proper
interpretation of representative independent claim 1 requires “displaying, on
the display of the display device, a number of recognized objects in
respective positions on the display,” but does not require “the respective
positions of the number of objects for the display” actually be determined
and adjusted/corrected.
Miyahara’s Figures 5a and 5b and column 3, lines 40-48 show and
describe a vehicle camera 14 for displaying objects to a vehicle driver on a
display 12 that, when taken with the disclosures of Szczerba and Knoll,
teach or suggest the positively recited limitations of representative
independent claim 1: (1) determining whether recognized objects are visible
6
Appeal 2016-004980
Application 13/287,675
or invisible, and (2) displaying a number of recognized objects in respective
positions on the display.
While claims 28 and 29 positively require “the respective positions of
the number of objects for the display” actually be determined and
adjusted/corrected via means-plus-fimction limitations at the end of each
claim, claim 1 merely recites a method for representing objects on a display
that includes (1) determining whether recognized objects are visible or
invisible to a vehicle occupant, and (2) displaying recognized objects on the
display.
Appellant admits the entire method of claim 1 (the positively recited
method steps of determining and displaying, that is) to be known (see Spec.
3—12; Figs. 1 and 2; see also Spec. 127). And, Appellant recognizes it is
a known problem that the spatial relationship between the driver position
and the location of the camera/sensor on the vehicle bumper causes a
perspective shift resulting in object positions on the display being shifted
(see Spec. H 9—12). Thus, Appellant’s invention lies in the determination of
object positions and movements, the determination of object position shifts,
and adjustment/correction for such factors in the final display for the vehicle
occupant (see Fig. 3, elements 14 and 20; Spec. (13 delineating the object of
the invention)). Because claim 1 does not require any determination of
object positions, movements, and/or object position shifts, and only
recognizes the inherent phenomenon of a shift occurring as between the
actual position/relation of objects and how those objects occur to the vehicle
driver via display, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive as to
claim 1.
7
Appeal 2016-004980
Application 13/287,675
Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of representative
claim 1 and claims 16—19 grouped therewith.
Independent Claims 28 and 29
On the other hand, and for all of the reasons already discussed, we
agree with Appellant’s arguments and conclusions with regard to
independent claims 28 and 29. Although Miyahara’s Figures 5a and 5b and
column 3, lines 40-48 show and describe a vehicle camera 14 for displaying
objects to a vehicle driver on a display 12, Miyahara is silent as to
“determining respective positions for a number of recognized objects for the
display,” as recited in claims 28 and 29. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 28 and 29.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 and 16—19 as being
obvious because the combination of Szczerba, Knoll, and Miyahara teaches
or suggests displaying a number of recognized objects in respective
positions on the display:
[Wjherein the respective positions of the number of
objects for the display have geometrical relationships between
the number of objects corresponding substantially to
real geometrical relationships from the perspective of the
occupant by virtue of being shifted from a perspective of the
one or more object recognition devices to the perspective of the
occupant,
as set forth in representative claim 1.
(2) The Examiner erred in as recited in claims 28 and 29 as being
obvious because the combination of Szczerba, Knoll, and Miyahara, and
8
Appeal 2016-004980
Application 13/287,675
specifically Miyahara, fails to teach or suggest the “means for determining
respective positions for a number of recognized objects for the display,”
recited in claims 28 and 29.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of (i) claims 1 and 16—19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed; and (ii) claims 28 and 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9