Ex Parte Rathi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 3, 2018

14191512 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 3, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/191,512 02/27/2014
153508 7590 07/06/2018
Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP/Magna
650 Trade Centre Way
Suite 200
KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
Ghanshyam Rathi
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 P-2228-423677 6185
EXAMINER
NOH, JAE NAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/06/2018 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 GHANSHY AM RA THI, HILDA F ARAJI, NIKHIL GUPTA,
CHRISTIAN TRAUB, MICHAEL SCHAFFNER, and GOERG PFLUG
Appeal 2017-011465
Application 14/191,512
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending and rejected
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Magna Electronics
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
--
]
Appeal 2017-011465
Application 14/191,512
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to vision
systems having a plurality of exteriorly facing cameras disposed at a vehicle.
See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A dynamic image stitching system for stitching images captured by
multiple cameras of a vision system of a vehicle, said dynamic image
stitching system comprising:
a first camera disposed at a vehicle and having a first field of view
exterior the vehicle;
a second camera disposed at the vehicle and having a second field of
view exterior the vehicle;
wherein said first and second fields of view at least partially overlap;
a processor operable to process image data captured by said first and
second cameras;
unpatentable over Rottner, Deng, and Meadow.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rottner, Deng, Meadow, and Shiraishi.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants'
contention that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Rottner
and Deng collectively teach "wherein said processor is operable to adjust
said stitching algorithm responsive to a determination of a difference
between a characteristic of a feature of a detected object as captured by said
f". I 1 '1 I" ~11 f' I {' 11 J~ ' 1 1 •
....-
,,;.
Appeal 2017-011465
Application 14/191,512
Claims 1-6, 13-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Rottner and Deng.
Claims 7-9, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rottner, Deng, and Meadow.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rottner, Deng, Meadow, and Shiraishi.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants'
contention that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Rottner
and Deng collectively teach "wherein said processor is operable to adjust
said stitching algorithm responsive to a determination of a difference
between a characteristic of a feature of a detected object as captured by said
first camera and the characteristic of the feature of the detected object as
captured by said second camera," as recited in independent claim 1
(emphasis added). 2 See App. Br. 22-27; Reply Br. 9-10.
The Examiner finds "Rottner does not disclose" the above limitation.
Final Act. 7. The Examiner then cites Deng's paragraphs 1 and 3 7 for
teaching the above limitation. Final Act. 7. We have reviewed the cited
Deng portions, and we find they do not describe "adjust said stitching
algorithm," let alone "wherein said processor is operable to adjust said
stitching algorithm responsive to a determination of a difference between a
2 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal 2017-011465
Application 14/191,512
characteristic of a feature of a detected object as captured by said first
camera and the characteristic of the feature of the detected object as captured
by said second camera," as required by claim 1. Absent further explanation
from the Examiner, we do not see how the cited Deng portions teach the
disputed claim limitation.
In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner merely asserts
"the dynamic stitching is disclosed by Rottner" (Ans. 30). However, the
Examiner does not cited any specific section of Rottner, and does not
explain why and how Rottner teaches the disputed limitation.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Each of independent claims 16 and 19 recites a claim limitation that is
substantively similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claims 16 and
19. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 16 and 19.
We also reverse the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2-15, 17, 18, and 20. Although the Examiner cites additional
references for rejecting some limitations in the dependent claims, the
Examiner has not shown the additional references overcome the deficiency
discussed above regarding the rejection of claims 1, 16, and 19.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
REVERSED
4