Magna Mirrors of America, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 23, 2022

2021001345 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2022)

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. 16/170,075 10/25/2018 Rodney K. Blank 225894-437564/ DON01 P3449 6582 153508 7590 03/23/2022 HONIGMAN LLP/MAGNA 650 TRADE CENTRE WAY SUITE 200 KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402 EXAMINER NIRJHAR, NASIM NAZRUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/23/2022 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 RODNEY K. BLANK, CHRISTOPHER R. KOETJE, and PATRICK M. FOLEY IV Appeal 2021-001345 Application 16/170,075 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2012). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Magna Mirrors of America, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001345 Application 16/170,075 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to a vehicle “interior mirror [that] can be used as a traditional mirror assembly, but can also be changed to a video monitor.” Spec. ¶ 19. Claims 1-20 are pending; claims 1, 13, and 18 are independent. Appeal Br. 44-51. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphases added): 1. A video mirror system for a vehicle, said video mirror system comprising: an interior rearview mirror assembly comprising a mirror head, said mirror head accommodating a transflective mirror reflective element; wherein said interior rearview mirror assembly is mounted at an interior portion of a vehicle equipped with said video mirror system; a display device comprising a video display screen disposed in said mirror head and accommodated behind said transflective mirror reflective element, said transflective mirror reflective element comprising a transflective mirror reflector; wherein said video display screen, when activated, displays video images viewable through said transflective mirror reflective element, and wherein said video display screen, when not activated, is covert behind said transflective mirror reflective element; a vehicle-mounted rear viewing camera disposed at a rear portion of the vehicle and having a field of view at least rearward of the vehicle; a trailer-mounted rear viewing camera disposed at a trailer that is configured to be hitched to the vehicle and that has a field of view at least rearward of the trailer; wherein said video mirror system operates in a mirror mode or a display mode responsive to actuation of a user input by a driver of the vehicle; wherein, when said video mirror system operates in the mirror mode, said video display screen is not activated and said transflective mirror reflector of said transflective mirror Appeal 2021-001345 Application 16/170,075 3 reflective element provides a mirror-reflected rearward view for the driver of the vehicle; wherein, when said video mirror system operates in the display mode, said video display screen is activated and displays video images through said transflective mirror reflector of said transflective mirror reflective element that are viewable by the driver viewing said transflective mirror reflective element; wherein said video display screen, when said video mirror system is operating in the display mode, and with no trailer hitched to the vehicle, displays video images derived from image data captured by the vehicle-mounted rear viewing camera; wherein said video display screen, when said video mirror system is operating in the display mode, and with the trailer equipped with the trailer-mounted rear viewing camera hitched to the vehicle, displays video images derived from image data captured by the trailer-mounted rear viewing camera; and wherein said video display screen, when said video mirror system is operating in the display mode, and with the trailer equipped with the trailer-mounted rear viewing camera hitched to the vehicle, and responsive to the vehicle being shifted to a forward gear, displays video images derived from image data captured at an upper region of the field of view of the trailer- mounted rear viewing camera and does not display video images derived from image data captured at a lower region of the field of view of the trailer-mounted rear viewing camera. References and Rejections The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Name Reference Date Soderlind U.S. 2013/0107045 A1 May 2, 2013 Pierce U.S. 2013/0177303 A1 July 11, 2013 Fuji U.S. 2016/0288714 A1 Oct. 6, 2016 Yagyu U.S. 2018/0065482 A1 Mar. 8, 2018 Timoneda U.S. 2018/0093613 A1 Apr. 5, 2018 Appeal 2021-001345 Application 16/170,075 4 Claims 1, 5-8, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Timoneda, Soderlind, and Yagyu. Final Act. 4. Claims 2-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Timoneda, Soderlind, Yagyu, and Pierce. Final Act. 22. Claims 10, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Timoneda, Soderlind, Yagyu, and Fuji. Final Act. 23. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013). We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner, to the extent consistent with our analysis below. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellant presents a number of arguments regarding error in the Examiner’s rejection of each claim. See Appeal Br. 9-42. Appellant provides the “reasons summarized below” for these arguments: • There is no disclosure or suggestion in Timoneda, Soderlind, Yagyu, Pierce, and Fuji (alone or in combination) of the claimed system. o There is no disclosure or suggestion in Timoneda, Soderlind, Yagyu, Pierce, and Fuji (alone or in combination) of a video mirror system that includes a mirror mode and a display mode responsive to actuation of a user input by a driver of the vehicle, as claimed (collectively and in combination with the other claim elements). o There is no disclosure or suggestion in Timoneda, Soderlind, Yagyu, Pierce, and Fuji (alone or in combination) of a video display screen that, when the video mirror system is operating in a display mode, and with a trailer equipped with a trailer-mounted rear viewing Appeal 2021-001345 Application 16/170,075 5 camera hitched to the vehicle, and responsive to the vehicle being shifted to a forward gear, displays video images derived from image data captured at an upper region of the field of view of the trailer-mounted rear viewing camera and does not display video images derived from image data captured at a lower region of the field of view of the trailer-mounted rear viewing camera, as claimed (collectively and in combination with the other claim elements). • One of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the likes of Timoneda, Soderlind, Yagyu, Pierce, and Fuji, would not be motivated or led to combine these references in the manner asserted in the Final Office Action and the combination is clearly a result of impermissible hindsight. • Timoneda, Soderlind, Yagyu, Pierce, and Fuji, alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest the combination of features defined in independent claim 1 (and similarly independent claims 13 and 18). Thus, Appellant submits that the modifications alleged by the Examiner fail to arrive at or render obvious the presently claimed invention. Appeal Br. 41-42; see also Appeal Br. 9-10. We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in determining the limitations of the independent claims are obvious in view of Timoneda, Soderlind, and Yagyu. See Final Act. 4. As cited, we find the references teach, inter alia, the following: • Timoneda teaches a video mirror system for a vehicle that operates in a mirror mode or a display mode, and can display different rearward fields of view to the vehicle operator based on the selected gear. See Timoneda Fig. 2 (depicting upper, middle, and lower rearward fields of view 11-13); ¶ 41 (“A rear-view mirror (21), integrating a display (2), has two different working modes: a first mode, the rear-view mirror (21) working as a mirror, . . . and a second mode, the rear-view Appeal 2021-001345 Application 16/170,075 6 mirror (21) working as a display.”); 42 (“the display (2) displays the image from the first camera (1) or the parking camera (3) depending on at least two different parameters: gear shift position and direction of movement”). • Soderlind teaches detecting a camera on a towed trailer and outputting the camera video on a rear mirror display. See Soderlind Fig. 1 (showing a towing vehicle and a trailer); ¶ 19 (“the rear-view mirror assembly 118 is configured to selectively provide reflected rear-view imaging utility, displayed camera image utility, or both simultaneously”). • Yagyu teaches displaying different rearward views based on user input. See Yagyu Fig. 11; ¶ 27 (“displays . . . an image of at least one of the views of the rear center, rear left side and rear right side of the vehicle according to the speed of the vehicle, gear shift, blinking of a turn signal, and a steering direction of the steering wheel.”). See Final Act. 4-14; Ans. 27-37. Appellant fails to show the Examiner errs in determining the disputed limitations of the independent claims are obvious in view of the above-cited teachings. For example, Appellant argues “Timoneda does disclose a ‘display on’ and a ‘display off’ mode at paragraph [0040], however there is absolutely no disclosure or suggestion that the user interface in any way switches between the modes.” Appeal Br. 19. We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive, because the Examiner reasonably finds the control of display modes obvious in view of Timoneda’s teaching of separately displaying the claimed display modes for a vehicle. See Final Act. 6; Timoneda ¶ 42 (“when the rear-view mirror (21) works displaying the Appeal 2021-001345 Application 16/170,075 7 images captured by the cameras”) (emphasis added). Appellant fails to provide evidence or technical reasoning that persuades us that user input for controlling known display modes was beyond the skill of the ordinary artisan, at the time of invention.2 Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the display modes controlled by user input was obvious in view of the teachings of the cited art. Appellant further argues “independent claim 1 recites when no trailer is hitched to the vehicle while Soderlind discloses determining presence of a camera,” and a “failure to detect a camera does not preclude existence of a trailer.” Appeal Br. 21. We find such argument unpersuasive, at least because Soderlind detects a camera attached to a trailer-which will detect the connected trailer-and Soderlind also teaches that, at times, no trailer will be hitched to the vehicle. See Soderlind ¶ 21 (“[T]he ECU 116 enables a first display mode when a trailer rear-view camera 114 is detected and enables a second display mode when the trailer rear-view camera is not detected (e.g., when the trailer is not connected to the towing vehicle 100).”). Appellant fails to present evidence or technical reasoning that persuades us the Examiner errs in determining such teachings render the trailer hitching limitations3 obvious. See Ans. 46. More importantly, we note the Specification explicitly states “the system determines that a trailer 2 Separately, we note Soderlind teaches or suggests changing modes responsive to actuation of a user input. See Soderlind ¶ 19, 25 (“another image display configuration is selected (e.g., via a selector of the rear view mirror assembly[)],” and “providing the default image display includes providing reflected rear-view imaging utility until display of such captured image in full area image display format is requested”). 3 See, e.g, Appellant’s claim 1 (“with no trailer hitched to the vehicle,” and “with the trailer equipped with the trailer-mounted rear viewing camera hitched to the vehicle”). Appeal 2021-001345 Application 16/170,075 8 (having a trailer-mounted rearward viewing camera) is connected to the vehicle (such as via the system receiving an output from the trailer-mounted rearward viewing camera.)” Spec. ¶ 24. Soderlind’s similar receipt of a trailer mounted camera output (See Soderlind ¶¶ 8, 21), therefore, teaches a trailer connection determination, consistent with the Specification. For at least these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We similarly are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the cited art teaches or suggests the limitation, “responsive to the vehicle being shifted to a forward gear, displays video images derived from image data captured at an upper region of the field of view of the trailer-mounted rear viewing camera,” recited by claim 1. See Ans. 32. Nor do we find the Examiner’s analysis errs with respect to claim 13’s similarly recited “lower region” based on a reverse gear, or claim 18’s similarly recited display of “a different view” based on the selected gear. See id. That is, the Examiner finds these limitations obvious in view of the combination of Timoneda’s different rearward views (including upper and lower) and Yagyu’s teaching of selecting a particular viewing region for display in a vehicle. See id. at 32-34; Timoneda Fig. 2; Yagyu ¶ 65 (“rear camera 110 horizontally rotatably coupled to the back of the vehicle to capture an image of the rear center BC, rear left side BL, or rear right side BR.”). Appellant fails to show error in the Examiner’s findings. Timoneda uses different cameras and a mirror to display the different fields of view (see Timoneda Fig. 2), whereas the claims display different regions of a field view of a given camera (as in, e.g., claims 1 and 13). The Examiner, however, finds one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Timoneda to use portions of a single camera (instead of multiple cameras) based on Yagyu’s camera teachings. See Final Act. 13-14, Ans. 34, 49. Appeal 2021-001345 Application 16/170,075 9 Appellant does not persuade us this in error, as Appellant has not shown that combining the rear camera viewing teachings of Timoneda and Yagyu was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Appellant argues the Examiner’s combination reasoning is based in impermissible hindsight (see, e.g., Appeal Br. 22-24), but fails to provide technical reasoning or sufficient evidence to show the Examiner errs. Rather, we find the Examiner’s determination to be supported by the cited teachings with rational underpinning. See Final Act. 3, 12-14; Ans. 35, 49. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)), and “[n]either is the practitioner in reading the [cited] patent disclosure compelled to adopt every single aspect of its teaching without the exercise of independent judgment” (Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In view of the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding one of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of the references in the manner claimed. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting the independent claims. We have considered Appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 18, or the rejections of the claims dependent thereon, are in error. Appeal 2021-001345 Application 16/170,075 10 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5-8, 12- 16, 18-20 103 Timoneda, Soderlind, Yagyu 1, 5-8, 12- 16, 18-20 2-4, 9 103 Timoneda, Soderlind, Yagyu, Pierce 2-4, 9 10, 11, 17 103 Timoneda, Soderlind, Yagyu, Fuji 10, 11, 17 Overall Outcome 1-20 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) (2013). AFFIRMED