Ex parte Grantz

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2001

08417613 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2001)

This appeal was originally scheduled for oral hearing on1
January 24, 2001. At the request of the Board, Craig Feinberg
contacted appellant’s attorney to request permission to decide
the appeal on brief. Appellant agreed to withdraw the request
for oral hearing, and agreed to an on-brief decision.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte HELMUT GRANTZ
_____________
Appeal No. 1999-0479
Application No. 08/417,613
______________
ON BRIEF1
_______________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and LEVY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the Final rejection of claims 2
through 10 and 12. In an Amendment After Final (paper number
10), claim 4 was amended.
The disclosed invention relates to a device for
Appeal No. 1999-0479
Application No. 08/417,613
2
protecting a motor vehicle against use by third parties. The
device senses facial features of a person sitting in the
driver’s seat of the vehicle and compares these features with
stored image information. When correspondence is detected
between the facial features and the stored image information,
the device generates a driver authorization signal that
changes at least one vehicle component from a disabled state
in which starting of the vehicle is disabled to an enabled
state in which it is possible to start the vehicle. In the
device, the sensing of facial features is also carried out at
time intervals when the vehicle is being driven. The stored
image information is stored in coded form in an end-user key
unit. For a prescribed plurality of subsequent vehicle
starts, at least one component of the device can be kept in an
enabled state after the above-noted correspondence operation.
Claim 3 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
3. Device for protecting a motor vehicle against use by
third parties comprising:
at least one vehicle component whose operation is
necessary to drive said vehicle, which vehicle component can
be adjusted by means of a driving authorization signal, from a
disabled state in which the starting of the vehicle is
Appeal No. 1999-0479
Application No. 08/417,613
3
disabled, into an enabling state in which the starting of the
vehicle is enabled; and
Appeal No. 1999-0479
Application No. 08/417,613
4
a memory containing desired image information
comprising facial area image information for persons
authorized to operate the motor vehicle;
an image comparison system for detecting facial
features of the driver by means of an image recording camera,
comparing the acquired image information with the stored
desired image information, for generating a driving
authorization signal only when correspondence is detected;
wherein
the sensed part of the body is a facial area of the
driver;
the image comparison system is an object detection
system comprising an image recording camera having an output
thereof connected to an image processing unit for an object-
detecting comparison of image information;
the image recording camera is positioned in the
vehicle directed at a facial area of the driver when the
latter is in position in the driver’s seat;
detection of facial areas of a driver is carried out
at time intervals when the vehicle is being driven;
the object-detecting image processing unit compares
the successively input items of actual image information with
one another; and
the object detection system interrupts generation of
the driving authorization signal when there is complete
correspondence between said successively input items of actual
image information.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Ishikawa et al. (Ishikawa) 4,625,329 Nov. 25,
1986
Appeal No. 1999-0479
Application No. 08/417,613
5
Ando 5,008,946 Apr.
16, 1991
Hasegawa et al. (Hasegawa) 5,091,856 Feb. 25,
1992
Tamada et al. (Tamada) 5,124,920 Jun. 23,
1992
Claims 2 through 10 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Ando in view of Tamada,
Ishikawa and Hasegawa.
Reference is made to the Final rejection, the Brief and
the Answer for the respective positions of the appellant and
the examiner.
OPINION
The obviousness rejection of claims 2 through 10 and 12
is reversed.
In Ando, the vehicle driver uses eye and mouth movements
to control vehicle components such as the radio, the air
conditioner, and cruise control (Figure 1a). A CCD camera 3
(Figure 1b) observes the eye and mouth movements of the driver
of the vehicle, and the images therefrom are compared to a
reference stored in memory (column 5, lines 15 through 59;
column 6, lines 26 through 61). Appellant argues that Ando is
not concerned with enabling or disabling the starting of the
Appeal No. 1999-0479
Application No. 08/417,613
6
vehicle based upon recognition of facial features of the
driver of the vehicle (Brief, page 10).
Tamada uses an electronic license device 10 (Figures 1
and 2; column 3, lines 18 through 22) that stores the address,
the name, the birth date, the license number, and the code
number of the owner in memory 15. When the license device 10
is inserted into the readout section 22, and the code number
of the owner is entered via keyboard 23, the readout section
22 reads out the license data stored in the memory 15, and a
comparison is made between the information in memory 15 and
the information L1 previously stored in RAM 24B (column 3,
line 65 through column 4, line 14). If there is agreement
between the license data and the previously stored
information, then the engine can be started by the driver.
Tamada is silent concerning the use of facial information to
control the starting of the vehicle.
We agree with the examiner that Tamada is concerned with
vehicle security (Final rejection, page 4), but we do not
agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to the
skilled artisan to apply such security teachings in Ando.
After all, the vehicle controls 20 through 30 in Ando (Figure
Appeal No. 1999-0479
Application No. 08/417,613
7
1a) that are controlled by facial feature recognition have
nothing to do with the security of the vehicle. Ando uses the
facial feature recognition control system purely for the
convenience of the driver of the vehicle (column 1, lines 42
through 63).
Ishikawa discloses a position analyzer for a driver of a
vehicle that derives positional information on a 3-dimensional
coordinate system in order to constantly adapt vehicle
accessories (e.g., the rearview mirror, the air conditioning,
the headrest, and the steering wheel) to the varying positions
of the driver (column 1, lines 35 through 64). A CCD is used
in an image sensor 8 of the position analyzer (column 2, lines
45 through 54). Ishikawa does not use facial features to
control the accessories, and Ishikawa is not concerned with
controlling the starting of the vehicle for vehicle security
purposes. Hasegawa discloses the use of an encoded ID card
that is needed to control the vehicle starter (Abstract).
Hasegawa is silent concerning the use of facial feature
recognition in connection with the encoded ID card. Based
upon the teachings of Ishikawa and Hasegawa, we agree with
appellant’s argument that “neither of these references
Appeal No. 1999-0479
Application No. 08/417,613
8
remedies the deficiencies of Ando” (Brief, page 12).
In summary, we find that the examiner has used
impermissible hindsight in the obviousness rejection of the
claimed invention.
Appeal No. 1999-0479
Application No. 08/417,613
9
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 2 through
10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:hh
Appeal No. 1999-0479
Application No. 08/417,613
10
EVENSON, McKEOWN, EDWARDS & LENAHAN
1200 G STREET, N.W.
SUITE 700
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005