Ex Parte Bally et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2018

14264443 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/264,443 04/29/2014
153508 7590 10/02/2018
Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP/Magna
650 Trade Centre Way
Suite 200
KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
Nazar F. Bally
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
MAG04- P2270-423700 6597
EXAMINER
WERNER, DAVID N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2018 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):
patent@honigman.com
tflory@honigman.com
asytsma@honigman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NAZAR F. BALLY, RICHARD D. SHRINER, and
PATRICK MILLER
Appeal2018-001697
Application 14/264,443
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. 1 App. Br. 7. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Magna Electronics, Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection ("Final Act.")
mailed January 6, 2017; the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed May 31, 2017;
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed October 6, 2017; and the Reply
Brief ("Reply Br.") filed December 5, 2017.
Appeal2018-001697
Application 14/264,443
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a rear-vision camera system
with dual-purpose signal lines. Spec. ,r 4. The camera system is
connected to an image processor. Id. Shared lines provide signals to
and from the image processor. Id. Specifically, a first shared line
carries an input-control signal and a program-clock signal, and a
second shared line carries a program-data signal and another input-
control signal. Id.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with our emphasis:
1. A vision system of a vehicle, said vision system comprising:
a camera disposed at a vehicle and having a field of view
exterior of the vehicle, wherein said camera is operable to
capture image data;
wherein said camera comprises a circuit board and an
imager disposed at said circuit board, wherein said imager
comprises a two-dimensional photosensor array of
photosensing pixels;
an image processor disposed at said circuit board of said
camera, wherein said circuit board has circuitry disposed
thereat;
wherein said image processor is operable to process
image data captured by said camera;
wherein signals to and from said image processor are
provided on at least one shared line connected between an
electrical connector of said camera and a vehicle control of the
vehicle; and
wherein said at least one shared line comprises at least
one combined camera control and camera programming line,
and wherein signals carried on said combined camera control
and camera programming line (i) control operation of said
camera and (ii) program said camera.
2
Appeal2018-001697
Application 14/264,443
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Boudreaux, Jr. et al
("Boudreaux")
US 6,404,174 Bl June 11, 2002
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Appellants' Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Boudreaux. Final Act. 4--
7.
CLAIMS 1--4, 9-11, 15, AND 18-20
The Examiner's Findings
The Examiner finds that AAP A teaches every limitation recited in
claim 1 except for combining the control and programming lines.
Final Act. 5. In concluding that claim 1 would have been obvious, the
Examiner finds that Boudreaux teaches this feature. Id. (citing Boudreaux
1 :43--47). According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to
combine the lines as taught by Boudreaux to constrain package size. Id.
( citing Boudreaux 1 : 46--4 7).
Appellants ' Contentions
Appellants argue that Boudreaux teaches a shared pin, not a shared
line. App. Br. 14. Appellants argue that the shared line is neither a pin nor a
trace, and each pin is not necessarily soldered to its own line. Id. at 15-16.
In Appellants' view, the recited shared line is external to the camera, unlike
a pin or trace. Id. at 16.
Appellants further contend that Boudreaux discloses that a memory
device's interface pins may be used for different functions, but the reference
3
Appeal2018-001697
Application 14/264,443
lacks a camera, camera programming, or camera function. App. Br. 14--15,
18. In Appellants' view, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be led or
motivated to combine Boudreaux's memory-device pins with AAPA's
multiple vehicle-camera lines. Id. at 17. According to Appellants, AAP A
does not disclose or suggest that it is desirable to constrain package size,
which the Examiner asserts in the obviousness rationale. Id. Appellants
argue that the shared lines in the claimed invention will not affect the
package or camera size, but also argue that the Examiner uses impermissible
hindsight in making the combination. Id. at 17-18; Reply Br. 3--4.
Appellants further argue that Boudreaux lacks signals to and from the
disclosed memory device. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 4. According to
Appellants, Boudreaux's circuit does not allow output signals to pass
through it. App. Br. 15. In Appellants' view, Boudreaux's circuit would
require a separate trace and line to accomplish this. Id. Appellants contend
that Boudreaux's circuitry is incapable of high-speed switching, which is
required for many control applications, and that Boudreaux lacks an "easily
discemable shared trace." Id. at 16.
Analysis
Appellants' argument that the recited shared line is unlike
Boudreaux's pin and trace (App. Br. 15-16) does not persuasively address
the Examiner's reliance on the collective teachings of AAPA and
Boudreaux.
Specifically, regarding the "shared line," the Specification states that
general purpose I/0 (GPIO) lines multiplexed with programming lines are
an example of a shared line. Spec. ,r 15; accord Ans. 9 n.1, App. Br. 13.
Similarly, the Examiner finds AAP A teaches two GPIO lines. Final Act. 5
4
Appeal2018-001697
Application 14/264,443
( citing Spec. ,r 14, Fig. 2). The Examiner proposes combining these two
lines with Boudreaux's teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Id. In
the cited passage, Boudreaux teaches that "one or more pins used for
programming such (EEPROM) memory devices are also shared with other
[]input/output (110) functions." Boudreaux 1:43--45. In the rejection, the
Examiner relies on Boudreaux for the limited purpose of teaching sharing
programming with other I/0 functions on a pin. See Final Act. 5. The
Examiner finds that Boudreaux's teaching of sharing a pin would also apply
to AAPA's GPIO lines. See Ans. 9-10.
We agree. Boudreaux's pin and the GPIO lines serve the same
function of carrying signals. See Final Act. 5. In this way, the Examiner's
proposed enhancement uses prior art elements predictably according to their
established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Moreover, the Examiner finds
Boudreaux teaches that the shared pin constrains package size. Final Act. 5
( citing Boudreaux 1:46--47). In the Examiner's proposed combination,
Boudreaux's pin is connected to the shared line. See id.; see also id. at 3.
Thus, the Examiner has shown that the device resulting from combining the
teachings would have the improved package size.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that AAP A does not
disclose or suggest that it is desirable to constrain package size. Id. "A
suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine the relevant prior art
teachings does not have to be found explicitly in the prior art." In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In this case, Boudreaux is relied
upon, in part, to support the Examiner's rationale for combining the
5
Appeal2018-001697
Application 14/264,443
references. See Final Act. 5. So, it is unnecessary for AAP A to reiterate the
benefit taught by Boudreaux.
Appellants' argument that Boudreaux lacks a camera, camera
programming, or camera function fails to address how the Examiner
proposes applying AAPA's camera control to Boudreaux's general-purpose
device. Accord Ans. 11-12. Appellants have not shown, for example, that
the Examiner's proposed modification would have been uniquely
challenging or otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. Nor
have Appellants shown that the Examiner's proposed combination would
render the prior art unsuitable for its intended purpose to teach away from
such an approach. At most, Appellants have explained that Boudreaux's
circuit would require certain modifications. See App. Br. 15-16. But this is
unpersuasive because "[ c ]ombining the teachings of references does not
involve an ability to combine their specific structures." In re Nievelt, 482
F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). In arguing against the combinability of these
references, Appellants only offer attorney arguments lacking supporting
evidence, which have little probative value. See In re Geisler, 116 F .3d
1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Furthermore, Appellants argue that the claimed shared lines will not
affect the package or camera size because they are external. App. Br. 17-
18; Reply Br. 3--4. However, in the rejection, AAP A teaches external lines,
and the Examiner relies on Boudreaux to teach a shared pin that affects
package size. Final Act. 5. Likewise, Appellants' argument that the
combination is made using impermissible hindsight with the application as a
template (App. Br. 9) is without support. In this case, by citing the
advantages discussed by Boudreaux and explaining how they apply to
6
Appeal2018-001697
Application 14/264,443
AAP A, the Examiner has supported the obviousness conclusion with
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning. See Final Act. 5;
Ans. 8-10.
Appellants' argument that Boudreaux lacks signals to and from the
disclosed memory device (App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 4) is unpersuasive because
both AAP A and Boudreaux teach or suggest input and output. First, we note
that Boudreaux teaches that "one or more pins used for programming ... are
also shared with other []input/ output (110) functions." Boudreaux 1 :43--45
(emphasis). That is, Boudreaux at least suggests input and output. See id.
Second, the Examiner's proposed combination is based on modifying
AAP A's GPIO lines with Boudreaux's teaching of a shared programming
pin. Id. That is, both references teach or suggest carrying signals to and
from the device. And for the above discussed reasons, we agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious to combine these teachings to
arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and
claims 2--4 and 9-11, which depend from claim 1 and are not argued
separately. See App. Br. 24. Claims 15 and 19 recite limitation similar to
those in claim 1, and Appellants' arguments with respect to these claims are
the same as those for claim 1. See id. at 27, 29. Therefore, we also sustain
the rejection of claims 15 and 19 and their dependent claims 18 and 20,
which are not argued separately. See id. at 29-30.
7
Appeal2018-001697
Application 14/264,443
CLAIMS 5-8, 12-14, 16, AND 17
I
Claims 5-8, 12-14, 16, and 17 recite limitations regarding the supply
voltage level, how the level is adjusted, and functions responsive to the
level. For example, claim 5 recites, in part, "a supply voltage level is
adjusted to adjust the signal that is communicated along said first and second
combined camera control and camera programming lines."
In the proposed combination of AAP A and Boudreaux, the Examiner
finds that Boudreaux teaches the recited supply voltage and the associated
adjustments recited in claims 5-8, 12-14, 16, and 17. See Final Act. 6-7
(citing Boudreaux 1 :47-50).
Appellants contend that Boudreaux's supply voltage equals the VCC,
but this voltage is not adjusted. App. Br. 20 ( claim 5), 24--25 ( claim 12).
According to Appellants, Boudreaux teaches boosting another voltage that is
higher than the VCC but does not adjust the VCC itself. Id. In Appellants'
view, Boudreaux stands in contrast to the invention, which increases the
"external supply voltage." Reply Br. 5 (citing Spec. ,r 15) (emphasis added).
Appellants argue that Boudreaux' s boost circuit is an extra circuit that
affects the voltage of a single line. Id. at 6.
In the cited passage, the Specification explains that increasing the
external supply voltage beyond the normal operating range enables the lines
for programming rather than GPIO. Spec. ,r 15. Likewise, reducing the
supply voltage to the normal operating range enables the lines for GPIO,
instead of programming. Id. Notably, the disclosed embodiment is
exemplary (see id. ,r 28), and claims 5-8 do not recite that the supply voltage
is external. Given the claims' breadth in this regard, we agree with the
8
Appeal2018-001697
Application 14/264,443
Examiner that the recited supply voltage encompasses Boudreaux's boosted
voltage, which elevates the voltage level higher than the VCC. Final Act. 6-
7. That is, although Boudreaux requires extra circuitry, i.e., a boost circuit,
such an arrangement falls within the scope of claims 5-8, 12-14, 16, and 17.
II
Claim 6 further recites, in part, "responsive to an increased supply
voltage level," and claim 8 recites, in part, "said increased supply voltage
level comprises a supply voltage level that is above an operating voltage
level of said camera." Claims 14, 16, and 1 7 recite similar limitations.
Reiterating the arguments discussed above, Appellants argue that
Boudreaux lacks an increased supply voltage, and thus, does not teach any
responses to an increased supply-voltage level. App. Br. 21, 23, 26-28;
Reply Br. 6. We disagree. Boudreaux teaches driving a shared
programming pin with a high programming voltage during a typical
programming operation. Boudreaux 1 :48-51. That is, like claims 6 and 8,
Boudreaux teaches communicating program signals at this high (increased)
programming voltage. Id. For the reasons discussed above, we agree with
the Examiner that the recited increased supply voltage encompasses
Boudreaux's high programming voltage.
III
Claim 7 recites, in part, "responsive to a decreased supply voltage
level, said first and second combined camera control and camera
programming lines communicate said first and second input control signals,
respectively." Claim 13 recites a similar limitation.
Appellants argue that Boudreaux does not teach adjusting a supply
voltage and further contend that Boudreaux does not use a decreased supply
9
Appeal2018-001697
Application 14/264,443
voltage for other functions. App. Br. 22 (claim 7), 25 (claim 13). However,
Boudreaux's programming functions are shared with other I/0 functions.
Boudreaux 2: 10-15. Furthermore, Boudreaux drives the shared
programming voltage during programming to a high programming voltage
"only when required for programming the device." Id. Therefore,
Boudreaux's other I/0 functions are decreased at least compared to this high
programming voltage. See id.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 5-8, 12-
14, 16, and 17.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
10