MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2021

2020003509 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 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.
15/651,383 07/17/2017 Ruediger Boegel MAG04-P3122/423507 1174
153508 7590 09/02/2021
HONIGMAN LLP/MAGNA
650 TRADE CENTRE WAY
SUITE 200
KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402
EXAMINER
JEBARI, MOHAMMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2021 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 RUEDIGER BOEGEL and KRISHNA KORAVADI
Appeal 2020-003509
Application 15/651,383
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Magna
Electronics, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003509
Application 15/651,383

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “a camera module for use in a vehicle
vision system” including “an additional structure to guide an airflow over
the camera front area to hold off rain, hail, snow and dust from the cameras
front lens surface while the vehicle is in motion.” Spec. ¶ 4. Claim 1,
reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for mitigating contamination of a lens of
a vehicular camera, said system comprising:
a camera comprising an imager and a lens, wherein said
camera is disposed at an exterior portion of a vehicle and has a
field of view exterior of the vehicle, and wherein said camera
captures image data;
wherein an outer surface of said lens of said camera is
exposed to the environment exterior of the vehicle;
a passive air flow device disposed at the vehicle and
configured to passively direct air flow across said outer surface
of said lens of said camera to establish a passive air stream
curtain;
an active air flow device operable to actively propel air
across said outer surface of said lens of said camera to establish
an active air stream curtain;
a control operable to activate and deactivate said active
air flow device responsive to speed of travel of the vehicle;
wherein, when the vehicle is driven at a speed of travel
below a threshold level, said control activates said active air
flow device to actively propel air across said outer surface of
said lens of said camera; and
wherein, when the vehicle is driven at a speed of travel
above the threshold level, said control does not activate said
active air flow device to actively propel air across said outer
surface of said lens of said camera.
Appeal Br. 34 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
Appeal 2020-003509
Application 15/651,383

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Ishii
(English Machine-
Translation)
JP 2004-182080 A Feb. 7, 2004
Irvin US 2007/0183039 A1 Aug. 9, 2007
Tregnago US 2012/0070142 A1 Mar. 22, 2012
Lawlor US 2012/0310519 A1 Dec. 6, 2012
Tanaka US 2013/0092758 A1 Apr. 18, 2013

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishii and Irvin. Final Act. 5–10.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ishii, Irvin, and Tanaka. Final Act. 11–13.
Claims 10, 12, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ishii, Irvin, and Tregnago. Final Act. 13–14.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ishii, Irvin, Tregnago, and Lawlor. Final Act. 14–15.
OPINION
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner relies on Ishii as disclosing the
recited limitations including a camera having its outer surface exposed to the
external environment and a passive air flow device establishing a passive air
stream curtain. Final Act. 5–6 (citing Ishii ¶¶ 7, 9, Figs. 1–5). The
Examiner further relies on Irvin as disclosing an active air flow device
establishing an active air stream curtain and a control for activating and
deactivating the active air flow device based on the vehicle speed being
Appeal 2020-003509
Application 15/651,383

4
below or above a threshold, respectively. Id. at 7–8 (citing Irvin ¶¶ 5, 7, 13,
22). The Examiner finds “it would have been obvious for one having skill in
the art at the time of invention to use an activate air blower, as taught by
Irvin, in order to have adequate and sufficient air flow when the vehicle is
moving at low speed (paragraph [0005]).” Id. at 8.
Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection is in error because the
cited portions of Irvin (e.g., ¶ 13) fail to teach or suggest the recited features
related to “a control operable to activate and deactivate said active air flow
device responsive to speed of travel of the vehicle.” See Appeal Br. 8.
According to Appellant, Irvin discloses “a user actuatable switch that a user
(e.g., the driver or a passenger of the vehicle) manually actuates to turn on
and off the air flow to clean an exterior side mirror that is being viewed by
the driver/user. Such manual actuation of a switch is done wholly
irrespective of the speed of travel of the vehicle.” Id. at 17. Similarly,
Appellant argues that Irvin’s “user actuatable switch that a user selectively
manually actuates (to clean a rearview mirror that the user is viewing) is not
a control that activates and deactivates an active air flow device (that cleans
an exterior camera) responsive to speed of travel of the vehicle, as claimed
(collectively and in combination with the other claim elements).” Id.
In response, the Examiner reiterates the findings with respect to Irvin
and explains that, similar to Appellant’s disclosure, Irvin recognizes that
passive air flow devices provide inadequate air flow for clearing the surface
of an external mirror. Ans. 18–19 (citing Irvin ¶ 5). The Examiner also
finds Irvin provides a system for using compressed air for cleaning the
external mirror which is activated by a user from inside the vehicle placing a
switch in on position, and subsequently deactivated or switched off by the
Appeal 2020-003509
Application 15/651,383

5
user when the cleaning system is no longer needed. Id. at 19 (citing Irvin
¶ 22). The Examiner further relies on the disclosure of “the driver can
switch the mirror clearing system on and leave it on while the driver
performs a particular activity, such as backing up,” Irvin ¶ 22, to conclude
that the claimed “a control operable to activate and deactivate said active air
flow device” based on the vehicle speed is met because the switch is turned
on during moving backward, which is done at slow speed. Ans. 19.
We agree with Appellant’s arguments. Irvin provides a switch for the
user to activate or deactivate the active air flow device at the user’s
discretion. See Irvin ¶¶ 13, 22. As further argued by Appellant, Irvin
mentions backing up as an example of a movement that requires cleaning the
external rear view mirror and how the user has control on activating the
mirror cleaning system. Reply Br. 3–4. We also agree with Appellant’s
assertion that “Irvin’s emphasis on the mirror clearing system being
activated in reverse is not because the vehicle is moving at a low speed (as
alleged by the Examiner)” but is based on how “a driver of the vehicle needs
to remove debris from the mirror to ensure visibility in a rearward direction
while backing up; the speed of travel of the vehicle is completely unrelated
to activation of Irvin's mirror clearing system.” See Id. at 4. In fact, the
Examiner has provided no supporting evidence for finding that Irvin’s
mirror cleaning system is switched on based on any assessment of the
vehicle speed, and instead has relied on speculative assumptions as to the
reference teachings in basing the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See
Ans. 18–20.
Appeal 2020-003509
Application 15/651,383

6
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s contentions that the
cited portions of Irvin do not disclose the disputed limitation, and do not
provide prima facie support for the obviousness rejection.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1, independent claims 16 and 18 which recited similar
limitations, as well as dependent claims 2–5, 8, 9, 15, 19, and 22, over the
combination of Ishii and Irvin. Similarly, we do not sustain the rejection of
the remaining dependent claims because the Examiner did not rely on the
other cited references as disclosing the disputed limitation missing in the
combination of Ishii and Irvin.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 8, 9,
15, 16, 18,
19, 22
103 Ishii, Irvin 1–5, 8, 9,
15, 16, 18,
19, 22
6, 7, 13, 14,
17
103 Ishii, Irvin, Tanaka 6, 7, 13, 14,
17
10, 12, 20,
21
103 Ishii, Irvin,
Tregnago
10, 12, 20,
21
11 103 Ishii, Irvin,
Tregnago, Lawlor
11
Overall
Outcome
1–22

REVERSED