MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 9, 2021

2019006790 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 2021)

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.
14/098,817 12/06/2013 Joern Ihlenburg MAG04 P-2193 9453
153508 7590 04/09/2021
HONIGMAN LLP/MAGNA
650 TRADE CENTRE WAY
SUITE 200
KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402
EXAMINER
MESA, JOSE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/09/2021 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):
asytsma@honigman.com
patent@honigman.com
tflory@honigman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOERN IHLENBURG and GOERG PFLUG
____________

Appeal 2019-006790
Application 14/098,817
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 5–18, and 20, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Magna
Electronics Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006790
Application 14/098,817

2
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention relates “to vehicles with cameras
mounted thereon and in particular to vehicles with one or more exterior-
facing cameras, such as forward facing cameras and/or sideward facing
cameras and/or rearward facing cameras.” Spec. ¶ 2.2
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A vehicular vision system, said vehicular vision system
comprising:
a plurality of cameras disposed at a vehicle and having
respective fields of view, wherein said cameras are operable to
capture image data, and wherein said cameras each comprise an
imager having at least a megapixel pixelated array of
photosensing elements;
wherein said plurality of cameras form a Stanford light
field array;
wherein said photosensing elements of said imager of each
of said cameras are arranged in a plurality of rows and a plurality
of columns;
wherein each of said cameras comprises a lens array
disposed at said pixelated array of photosensing elements,
wherein said lens array comprises an array of lens elements for
imaging light onto respective sub-arrays of photosensing
elements of said pixelated array of photosensing elements;
wherein said lens array of each of said cameras comprises
a two dimensional matrix of a plurality of rows and a plurality of
columns of lens elements with each lens element disposed over
respective rows and columns of said photosensing elements;
wherein sub-arrays of lens elements coincide with
respective sub-arrays of photosensing elements;

2 We refer to the Specification filed Dec. 6, 2013 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action mailed June 15, 2017 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed Nov. 15,
2017 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed July 18, 2019 (“Ans.”);
and the Reply Brief filed Sept. 17, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-006790
Application 14/098,817

3
an image processor operable to process image data
captured by said cameras; and
wherein, responsive at least in part to image processing of
image data captured by photosensing elements of sub-arrays of
photosensing elements associated with respective sub-arrays of
lens elements of said lens array of each of said cameras, said
vehicular vision system is operable to determine distance to an
object present in the fields of view of said cameras.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Name Reference Date
Bos et al. (“Bos”) US 6,396,397 B1 May 28, 2002
Fields et al.
(“Fields”)
US 2005/0015201 A1 Jan. 20, 2005
Nakao et al.
(“Nakao”)
US 2008/0025571 A1 Jan. 31, 2008
Rafii et al. (“Rafii”) US 7,741,961 B1 June 22, 2010
van der Mark et al.
(“van der Mark”)
US 2011/0293142 A1 Dec. 1, 2011
Hess US 2015/0234569 A1 Aug. 20, 2015

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 10–12, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bos, Nakao, and van der Mark. Final Act. 10.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Bos, Nakao, van der Mark, and Rafii. Final Act. 33.
Claims 6–8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Bos, Nakao, van der Mark, Rafii, and Fields. Final Act. 35.
Appeal 2019-006790
Application 14/098,817

4
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Bos, Nakao, van der Mark, Rafii, and Hess. Final Act. 39.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Bos, Nakao, van der Mark, and Hess. Final Act. 40.
Claims 14–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Bos, Nakao, Rafii, Fields, and van der Mark. Final Act. 42.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Bos, Nakao, van der Mark, Rafii, and Fields. Final Act. 56–57.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 10–12, and 18
Claim 1 recites (emphases added):
a plurality of cameras disposed at a vehicle and having
respective fields of view, wherein said cameras are operable to
capture image data, and wherein said cameras each comprise an
imager having at least a megapixel pixelated array of
photosensing elements;
wherein said plurality of cameras form a Stanford light
field array;
. . .
wherein, responsive at least in part to image processing of
image data captured by photosensing elements of sub-arrays of
photosensing elements associated with respective sub-arrays of
lens elements of said lens array of each of said cameras, said
vehicular vision system is operable to determine distance to an
object present in the fields of view of said cameras.
The Examiner finds that Bos teaches a vehicular system with cameras
disposed at the vehicle. Final Act. 10–11 (citing Bos 1:30–32, 4:42–44, 5:1–
7, 5:59–65, Figs. 1–3); see also Ans. 75. Specifically, the Examiner finds
that Bos’s lenses for each of the cameras teach that each of the cameras
comprises a lens array. Final Act. 12 (citing Bos 5:1–7, 5:59–65, 6:8–28,
Appeal 2019-006790
Application 14/098,817

5
8:21–67, Figs. 3–4, 7–8); see also Ans. 76. The Examiner further finds that
Bos’s imaging arrays, combined with Nakao’s optical lens array arranged in
a matrix of rows and columns, teach the claimed lens arrays comprising a
two-dimensional matrix of rows and columns of lens elements. Final Act.
13, 16 (citing Bos 5:59–65, 6:8–28, 7:34–45, Figs. 3–4, 6–8; Nakao ¶¶ 32,
36–37, 56, 71, Figs. 1, 3); see also Ans. 80–81. The Examiner cites to Bos’s
vehicular system being “operable to determine distance . . . to an object” to
teach the claimed determining a distance. Final Act. 15–16 (citing Bos
4:44–67, 5:1–39, Figs. 1–3). The Examiner also finds that van der Mark
teaches cameras forming a Stanford light field array. Final Act. 18 (citing
van der Mark ¶ 10); see also Ans. 73–74 (citing van der Mark ¶¶ 9–10, 39–
40, Figs. 1–4).
Appellant argues that Bos’s “vehicle imaging system 12 that includes
a pair of imaging sensors 34a, 34b” does not teach “a camera array” or the
claimed “plurality of cameras form[ing] a Stanford light field array.”
Appeal Br. 22–23. Specifically, Appellant argues that “Bos merely discloses
the use of a pair of imagers of a stereoscopic camera having the same field
of view,” but not “an array of cameras spaced apart to provide a Stanford
light field array.” Id. at 23.
Appellant further argues that “one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have been motivated or led to combine van der Mark with Bos at least
because van der Mark disparages the use of a Stanford light field array and
furthermore teaches away from the use of a Stanford light field array.”
Appeal Br. 25. Specifically, Appellant argues that “van der Mark notes that
‘the large physical dimensions [of light field arrays] are disadvantageous for
several applications, e.g. in airplanes etc.’” and “teaches toward the use of a
Appeal 2019-006790
Application 14/098,817

6
single camera (e.g., a stereoscopic camera) that is freely moved while
images are being taken during this movement to provide an array of
images.” Id. at 26 (citing van der Mark ¶ 10); see id. at 27–28.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner
erred. We find Appellant has not demonstrated that “a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553
(Fed Cir. 1994). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that “van der Mark
is not teaching away since van der Mark discloses the use of a plurality of
cameras.” Ans. 74; see id. at 73. Van der Mark (describing “Prior-art SA
techniques” with “State-of-the-art camera array’s systems” including the
“Stanford camera array” as acquiring “results [that] are very promising”)
“does not teach away. . . [as] it merely expresses a general preference for an
alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.” Van der Mark ¶ 10;
DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327
(Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir.
2004)). Van der Mark’s passage discussing “State-of-the-art camera array’s
systems” only identifies disadvantages for certain “applications, e.g. in
airplanes.” Id. (emphasis added). Van der Mark does no more than
articulate a preference for using “only a very limited number of cameras”
while acknowledging that prior art “State-of-the-art camera array’s systems”
including “Stanford camera array[s]” have “very promising” results. Id.
¶¶ 10–11. Because the combination of references is not directed to a system
Appeal 2019-006790
Application 14/098,817

7
used with airplanes, the stated preference is insufficient to teach away from
the claimed invention. See Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201.
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Bos
and van der Mark teach the “Stanford light field array” recited in claim 1.
The Specification provides support for the claimed “plurality of cameras
form[ing] a Stanford light field array” as “multiple cameras” that cover “a
wider area.” Spec. ¶ 28. The Specification further describes the Stanford
light field array that “may be composed at a vehicle by using multiple
cameras.” Id. ¶ 29. An example provides that “a vehicle 10 may have
generally evenly (ideal for a Stanford light field array) distributed cameras
140 at or over the exterior of the vehicle.” Id. Therefore, the claimed
Stanford light field array, as supported by the Specification, merely requires
a setup of multiple (more than one, at least two) cameras that are distributed
over an area.
As cited by the Examiner, Bos discloses an “imaging sensor module
14 preferably includes a pair of imaging array sensors 34a and 34b.” Bos
5:59–61. Bos also discloses that “imaging arrays 34a and 34b are pixelated
imaging array sensors,” and they “receive light from objects and/or light
sources in the target scene.” Id. at 6:8–9, 6:29–31.
As further cited by the Examiner, van der Mark discloses the prior art
using “fixed array[s] of cameras.” Van der Mark ¶ 40. One such example
for “State-of-the-art camera array’s systems” includes “the Stanford camera
array.” Id. ¶ 10.
Van der Mark also discloses “recognizing objects in a set of images
recorded by one or more cameras” and “using “only a very restricted number
Appeal 2019-006790
Application 14/098,817

8
of cameras.” Id. ¶¶ 39–40. A restricted number of cameras does not
preclude more than one camera.
Appellant does not persuasively explain why van der Mark’s camera
array system, including the Stanford camera array, fails to teach the claimed
“cameras form[ing] a Stanford light field array.” Appellant also does not
persuasively explain why Bos’s “pair of imaging array sensors” or van der
Mark’s “one or more cameras” or “restricted number of cameras” fail to
teach the claimed “plurality of cameras form[ing] a Stanford light field
array” that merely requires a setup of multiple cameras.
Appellant further argues that Nakao does not teach “determin[ing]
distance to an object present in the fields of view of the cameras, as
claimed.” Appeal Br. 24. Specifically, Appellant argues that “Nakao does
not suggest in any way that its motion detection imaging device would be
suitable or helpful in determining distance to objects.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred. The Examiner relies on Bos, not Nakao, to teach the claimed
“determin[ing] distance to an object present in the fields of view of said
cameras.” Final Act. 12–13, 16 (citing Bos 5:59–65, 6:8–28, 7:34–45, Figs.
3–4, 6–8; Nakao ¶¶ 32, 36–37, 56, 71, Figs. 1, 3). One cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually, where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
As cited by the Examiner, Bos discloses an “imaging sensor module
14 preferably includes a pair of imaging array sensors 34a and 34b.” Bos
5:59–61. Bos also discloses “activating each imaging array sensor 34a and
34b and analyz[ing] the output of each to determine the . . . distance from
Appeal 2019-006790
Application 14/098,817

9
the vehicle to the light source.” Id. at 6:3–7. In Bos, “the distance to an
object in the target scene may . . . be determined as a function of the
locations of each sensed image” from the imaging array sensors “relative to
a respective reference location.” Id. at 6:43–50.
Appellant does not persuasively explain why Bos’s determination of
distance to an object in a target scene, based on imaging data from the
imaging array sensors, fails to teach the claimed “determin[ing] distance to
an object present in the fields of view of said cameras.”
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, along with independent claim 18, and dependent claims 10–12,
which are not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 32–33.
Claims 5–9 and 13
Claims 5–9 and 13 depend directly and indirectly from claim 1.
Appellant does not separately make substantive arguments against the
rejections of claims 5–9 and 13. See Appeal Br. 33–34. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 5–9 and 13.
Claims 14–17
Claim 14 additionally recites
wherein, responsive to image processing of captured image data,
said image processor acquires depth information of a scene in
view of said Stanford light field array;
wherein said image processor processes a depth map of a scene
in view of said Stanford light field array out of the scene’s depth
information; and
wherein said depth map comprises an input to a driver assistant
system of the vehicle.
Appeal Br. 42–43 (Claims App.)
Appeal 2019-006790
Application 14/098,817

10
The Examiner finds that Rafii’s Time-of-Flight (TOF) systems
provide reliable depth information, that the depth imaging system is
mounted with a three-dimensional field of view (FOV), and that the TOF
imaging system is employed to obtain depth images of the relevant FOV.
Ans. 88–90 (citing Rafii 2:9–67, 4:39–52, 6:14–19, Figs. 1, 3); see also
Final Act. 46–47 (citing Rafii 2:9–67, 4:39–52, 6:14–19, Figs. 1, 3–6).
The Examiner also finds that Fields’s “depth map compris[ing] a two-
dimensional array of pixels, where a value of a pixel represents the depth to
a point in the scene” teaches “acquir[ing] depth information of a scene in
view.” Final Act. 48 (citing Fields ¶¶ 20–22, Figs. 1–4). The Examiner also
finds that Fields’s “depth map generator 302 is provided as an input to a
driver vehicle controller 306 and the method 400 processes the smoothed
depth map,” and teaches that the “depth map comprises an input to a driver
assistant system of the vehicle” as claimed. Ans. 90–91 (citing Fields
¶¶ 20–22, Figs. 1–4); see also Final Act. 47–48 (citing Fields ¶ 21, Fig. 3).
The Examiner relies on van der Mark to teach the claimed “Stanford
light field array.” Ans. 91.
Appellant argues that, “while the claimed depth information is
acquired from a scene in view of a Stanford light field array (via image
processing of captured image data), the depth information of Rafii is
acquired from a TOF [Time-of-Flight] depth imaging system.” Appeal Br.
30 (emphasis added). Specifically, Appellant argues that Rafii is “wholly
silent with respect to a Stanford light field array.” Id. Appellant also argues
that, “to the extent that Fields discloses a depth map input to a vehicle
controller, Fields does not disclose or suggest the acquiring of depth
information from a Stanford light field array.” Id. at 31 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-006790
Application 14/098,817

11
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred. Here, as we explained above, the Examiner relies on van der Mark to
teach the claimed Stanford light field array. See Ans. 91. As cited by the
Examiner, van der Mark discloses “Prior-art SA techniques” with “State-of-
the-art camera array’s systems” including the “Stanford camera array.” Van
der Mark ¶ 10. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually, where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097; Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
As we also explained above, van der Mark’s use of multiple cameras
also teaches a “Stanford light field array,” as supported by the Specification,
which merely requires a setup of multiple cameras that are distributed over
an area. See Spec. ¶¶ 28–29 (“multiple cameras” that cover “a wider area,”
or “composed at a vehicle by using multiple cameras”). Specifically, van
der Mark discloses “recognizing objects in a set of images recorded by one
or more cameras” or using “only a very restricted number of cameras.” Van
der Mark ¶¶ 39–40.
Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding that van
der Mark’s camera array’s system including the Stanford camera array
teaches the claimed Stanford light field array from which depth information
is acquired.
Appellant also does not persuasively explain why van der Mark’s
“one or more cameras” or “restricted number of cameras” fail to teach the
claimed “Stanford light field array” that merely requires a setup of multiple
(more than one) cameras.
Appeal 2019-006790
Application 14/098,817

12
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 14, along with the rejection of dependent claims 15–17, which are not
argued separately. See Appeal Br. 34.
Claim 20
Claim 20 depends directly from claim 18. Appellant does not
separately make substantive arguments against the rejection of claim 20.
See Appeal Br. 34–35. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claim 20.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1, 5–18, and 20.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 10–12, 18 103 Bos, Nakao, van der
Mark
1, 10–12, 18
5 103 Bos, Nakao, van der
Mark, Rafii
5
6–8 103 Bos, Nakao, van der
Mark, Rafii, Fields
6–8
9 103 Bos, Nakao, van der
Mark, Rafii, Hess
9
13 103 Bos, Nakao, van der
Mark, Hess
13
14–17 103 Bos, Nakao, Rafii,
Fields, van der Mark
14–17
20 103 Bos, Nakao, van der
Mark, Rafii, Fields
20
Overall
Outcome
1, 5–18, 20
Appeal 2019-006790
Application 14/098,817

13

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED