Ex Parte Hahn

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 30, 2011

10110759 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 30, 2011)

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.
10/110,759 08/26/2002 Wolfgang Hahn 080437.50413US 2319
23911 7590 11/30/2011
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
EXAMINER
VO, TUNG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte WOLFGANG HAHN
____________________

Appeal 2010-006095
Application 10/110,7591
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Application filed August 26, 2002, which claims benefit to
PCT/EP00/10051 filed October 12, 2000, which claims benefit to DE
19950033.9 filed October 16, 1999. The real party in interest is Bayerische
Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2010-006095
Application 10/110,759

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-30.
Claims 1-7 have been canceled. The Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s Invention
The invention at issue on appeal relates to a camera system, computer-
readable medium, and related method for controlling a variable-orientation
camera which captures the course of a road to be travelled in front of a
vehicle. The system includes a control unit which controls the orientation of
the variable-orientation camera by obtaining driving-related parameters of
the vehicle and/or satellite-based information concerning the actual location
of the vehicle and/or the course of the road. The control unit then may be
pre-adjusted before the start or end of turn (corner) in the direction of the
course of the road. (Spec. ¶¶ [0001], [0006]-[0008].)2
Representative Claim
Independent claim 8 further illustrates the invention and is reproduced
below with the key disputed limitations emphasized:
8. A camera system for a vehicle, comprising:
a variable-orientation camera configured to capture a
course of a road to be travelled in front of the vehicle;
a control unit operatively coupled with the camera to
control the variable-orientation, wherein the control unit

2 Throughout our decision, we refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”)
(paragraph numbers refer to English translation); Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”)
filed February 29, 2008; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed June 11, 2008.
We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed April 29, 2008.
Appeal 2010-006095
Application 10/110,759

3
receives as inputs at least one of driving-related parameters of
the vehicle, satellite-based information concerning an actual
location of the vehicle, a course of the road and a local position
of the road; and
wherein the control unit operates to pre-adjust, as a
function of vehicle speed, the orientation of the camera before a
start or end of a vehicle cornering in a direction of the course
of the road which the vehicle will then follow.

Reference
The Examiner relies on the following reference as evidence of
unpatentability:
Abersfelder US 5,646,614 Jul. 8, 1997

Haruya JP 05278522 A Oct. 26, 1993

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 8-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Haruya and Abersfelder.

ISSUE
Based on our review of the administrative record, Appellant’s
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us is as follows:
Does the Examiner err in finding Haruya and Abersfelder would have
collectively taught or suggested a control unit operative to “pre-adjust, as a
function of vehicle speed, the orientation of the camera before a start or end
of a vehicle cornering in a direction of the course of the road which the
vehicle will then follow,” as recited in claim 8?
Appeal 2010-006095
Application 10/110,759

4

ANALYSIS
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the rejection – the so-called
“prima facie” case. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(the USPTO has the initial burden of proof “to produce the factual basis for
its rejection of an application under sections 102 and 103.” (quoting In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1016 (CCPA 1967))). “[T]he examiner bears the
initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appellant has the opportunity on appeal to BPAI to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). The
Examiner sets forth a detailed explanation of the obviousness rejection in the
Examiner’s Answer with respect to Appellant’s claims (Ans. 3-6) and in
particular the obviousness rejection of independent claim 8 (id.). Therefore,
we look to the Appellant’s Briefs to show error in the proffered findings and
conclusions. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 985-86.
Arguments Concerning the Examiner’s Rejection of
Representative Claim 8 Under §103
The Examiner rejects Appellants’ independent claim 1 as being
obvious over Haruya and Abersfelder. (Ans. 3-6.) Specifically, the
Examiner submits that Haruya describes cameras (Fig. 16, elements 21R &
21L) that detect the intersection orientation of cross roads which the vehicle
to follow (as shown in Figure 3) and a control unit (Figs. 6-10, element 32)
Appeal 2010-006095
Application 10/110,759

5
which adjusts the camera as a function of vehicle speed (Ans. 3-6 (citing
Haruya, ¶¶ [0011]-[0017], [0022], [0023]; Figs 3-11, 16).)
Appellant contends that “Haruya and Abersfelder fail to teach or
suggest the feature of claim 8 of ‘wherein the control unit operates to pre-
adjust, as a function of vehicle speed, the orientation of the camera before a
start or end of a vehicle cornering in a direction of the course of the road
which the vehicle will then follow.’” (App. Br. 4; see Reply Br. 1-3.)
Specifically, Appellant asserts that the adjustment of Haruya’s camera
orientation is initially determined by the detected angles of the roads
obtained from map data. After the vehicle goes below a certain speed the
cameras are turned on, and the adjustment of Haruya’s camera orientation is
based on the rotation of the vehicle. In particular, both adjustment
operations are independent of (not based on) the vehicle speed. (App. Br. 4-
5; Reply Br. 1-2.)
Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of Appellant’s claim 8. We agree with Appellant that
Haruya (and Haruya and Abersfelder collectively) does not disclose, teach,
or suggest pre-adjusting the orientation of a camera based on vehicle speed
to capture the course of the road a vehicle will follow).
Although Haruya states that the cameras “may be ahead set up” (¶
[0022]) and turning on cameras after the vehicle goes below a predetermined
speed (V0) (¶ [0023]), we find no clear explanation, either in Haruya or the
Examiner’s discussion of the rejection, of how Haruya adjusts the cameras
based on vehicle speed. Therefore, we find that, at most, Haruya discloses
pre-adjusting cameras based on road orientation and then turning on cameras
when a vehicle goes below a certain speed. The adjustment of the
Appeal 2010-006095
Application 10/110,759

6
orientation of the camera is not based on the speed of the vehicle. (See App.
Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 1-2.) Absent some additional explanation to support the
Examiner’s findings, we cannot agree that Haruya’s general disclosure of
adjusting cameras based on road orientation and turning on cameras when a
vehicle goes below a certain speed teaches or fairly suggests Appellant’s
recited claim features.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to conclude
that Haruya and Abersfelder would not have taught or suggested each recited
feature of Appellant’s claim 8 to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Appellant’s invention. Therefore, the rejection of claim 8 fails to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellants’ independent claims 29 and 30 include limitations of
similar scope. Dependent claims 9-28 (dependent on claim 8) stand with
claim 8. Thus, based on the record before us and for the reasons set forth
with respect to claim 8, we find that the Examiner erred in finding Haruya
and Abersfelder would not have taught or suggested the disputed limitations
recited in Appellants’ claims 9-30. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 8-30.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8-
30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2010-006095
Application 10/110,759

7
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

REVERSED

peb