Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01801/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01801-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Magna Electronics, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE: MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Appellant

______________________ 

2014-1798

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 90/011,478. 

---------------------------------------------------------

IN RE: MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Appellant

______________________ 

2014-1801

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 90/011,477.

______________________ 

Decided: May 7, 2015

______________________ 

TERENCE J. LINN, Gardner, Linn, Burkhart & Flory, 

LLP, Grand Rapids, MI, for appellant.

Case: 14-1801 Document: 31-2 Page: 1 Filed: 05/07/2015
2 IN RE: MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC. 

NATHAN K. KELLEY, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for 

appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by FARHEENA 

YASMEEN RASHEED, LORE A. UNT, THOMAS W. KRAUSE. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, LOURIE and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Magna Electronics, Inc. (“Magna”) appeals from two 

related ex parte reexamination decisions of the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), Patent Trial 

and Appeal Board (“Board”). In the first, Magna appeals 

from the Board’s decision affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 45 and 107 of U.S. Patent 6,222,447 (“the 

’447 patent”) as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006).1 

Ex parte Magna Elecs., Inc., No. 2013-004164, 2014 WL 

2360424 (P.T.A.B. May 28, 2014) (“Decision I”). In the 

second, Magna appeals from the Board’s decision affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 5–9 of U.S. 

Patent 5,949,331 (“the ’331 patent”) as obvious under 

§ 103(a). Ex parte Magna Elecs., Inc., No. 2013-006429, 

2014 WL 2466134 (P.T.A.B. May 28, 2014) (“Decision II”). 

Because the Board did not err, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Magna is the assignee of the ’447 and ’331 patents, 

which are directed to vehicular rearview vision systems 

comprising an image capture device and a display system. 

Notably, the ’447 patent describes a CMOS imaging array 

as the image capture device, and the ’331 patent describes 

1 Because the applications of the ’447 and ’331 patents were filed before March 16, 2013, the pre-LeahySmith America Invents Act version of § 103 applies. See

Pub L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). 

 

Case: 14-1801 Document: 31-2 Page: 2 Filed: 05/07/2015
IN RE: MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC. 3

a display system that enhances images by using a graphic 

overlay of horizontal lines to indicate distance. 

A 

Claim 45 is representative of the two claims at issue 

in the ’447 patent and reads as follows:

45. A rearview vision system for a vehicle having a gear actuator, comprising:

an image capture device mounted at the 

rear of the vehicle and having a field of 

view directed rearwardly of the vehicle, 

wherein said image capture device comprises a pixelated imaging array and wherein 

said pixelated array comprises a CMOS imaging array;

a display system viewable by a driver of the 

vehicle which displays a rearward image 

output of said image capture device; 

a graphic overlayer superimposed on said 

rearward image when the gear actuator of 

the vehicle selects a reverse gear; and

wherein said graphic overlayer is disabled 

when the gear actuator of the vehicle is not 

in reverse gear. 

’447 patent col. 14 ll. 31–44, col. 15 ll. 12–15. 

In February 2011, a third party requested a second ex 

parte reexamination of several claims of the ’447 patent, 

which the PTO granted. In a Final Office Action, the 

examiner rejected most of the challenged claims. In 

particular, the examiner rejected claims 45 and 107 as 

obvious over a combination of Japanese Patent Application No. 64-14700 (“JP ’700”), Japanese Patent Application No. 60-79889 (“JP ’889”), and Wang et al., CMOS 

Video Cameras, IEEE 100–03 (1991) (“Wang”). Magna 

Case: 14-1801 Document: 31-2 Page: 3 Filed: 05/07/2015
4 IN RE: MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC. 

initially appealed the entire rejection to the Board; however, in its reply brief, Magna withdrew its appeal without prejudice as to all claims except claims 45 and 107. 

On appeal, the Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claims 45 and 107, finding that it would have been 

obvious to combine the vehicular vision systems of JP ’700 

and JP ’889 with the CMOS camera disclosed in Wang. 

Decision I at *6. First, the Board found that Wang generally teaches the use of CMOS cameras in “smart vision 

systems,” which necessarily includes vehicular vision 

systems. Id. at *2. Next, the Board found that replacing 

the CCD camera of JP ’700 and JP ’889 with the CMOS 

camera of Wang would have been “mere substitution of 

one element for another known in the field” and “would 

have achieved the predictable result of reducing the size, 

cost, and power consumption” of CCD-based systems. Id. 

In so doing, the Board rejected Magna’s proffered expert 

testimony, finding it biased, unsupported, and contrary to 

the express teachings of Wang. Id. at *3. Last, the Board 

found that Magna failed to provide adequate evidence of 

secondary considerations to rebut the otherwise strong 

prima facie case of obviousness. Id. at *4–6. According to 

the Board, Magna failed to show, inter alia, (1) a nexus 

between the alleged commercial success and the claimed 

invention; (2) any expert skepticism doubting whether

CMOS camera-based vehicular vision systems could be 

manufactured; and (3) any unexpected results. Id. 

B 

Claim 3 is representative of the claims at issue in the 

’331 patent and reads as follows:

3. A vehicular rearview vision system, comprising:

at least one image capture device positioned 

on the vehicle and adapted to capturing images of objects;

Case: 14-1801 Document: 31-2 Page: 4 Filed: 05/07/2015
IN RE: MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC. 5

a display system which displays an image 

which comprises a rearward facing view of 

objects captured by said at least one image 

capture device; 

wherein said display system enhances the 

displayed image by including an image enhancement comprising a visual prompt perspectively related to objects in the image 

displayed and which visually informs the 

driver of what is occurring in the area surrounding the vehicle including relative position of objects behind the vehicle; and 

wherein said image enhancement comprises 

a graphic overlay superimposed on the displayed image indicating distances of objects 

from the vehicle and wherein said graphic 

overlay comprises at least one horizontal 

mark superimposed on the displayed image. 

’331 patent col. 12 l. 59–col. 13 l. 9. Claim 5, in addition 

to reciting the system of claim 3, further requires “wherein said at least one horizontal mark comprises a plurality 

of short horizontal lines superimposed on the image at 

regular rearward intervals.” Id. col. 13 ll. 13–16. Claims 

6–9 further depend from claim 5. 

In February 2011, a third party similarly requested a 

second ex parte reexamination of several claims of the ’331 

patent, which the PTO granted. In a Final Office Action, 

the examiner rejected all of the challenged claims. Notably, the examiner rejected claims 3 and 5–9 as obvious 

over a combination of JP ’700 and JP ’889. Magna initially appealed the entire rejection to the Board; however, in 

its reply brief, Magna withdrew its appeal without prejudice as to all claims except claims 3 and 5–9.

On appeal, the Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 5–9, finding that it would have been 

Case: 14-1801 Document: 31-2 Page: 5 Filed: 05/07/2015
6 IN RE: MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC. 

obvious to combine the graphic overlay of JP ’889 with the 

vision system of JP ’700. Decision II at *5. First, the 

Board noted that the claims do not require a distance 

measurement; they only require “a display that indicates 

distance from objects in some manner.” Id. at *2 (referring to ’331 patent col. 10 ll. 56–63). The Board then 

found that JP ’889 “teaches horizontal lines” that “indicate[] distances of objects from a vehicle by virtue of being 

superimposed at regular, rearward intervals onto an 

image taken by a rear-facing camera,” as required by the 

claims. Id. at *3. Even if the claims in fact require a 

distance measurement, the Board noted, JP ’889 also 

“contains markings that indicate whether an object is 

closer to the vehicle (50) or farther from the vehicle (200).” 

Id. The Board thus rejected as unpersuasive Magna’s 

contrary expert testimony. Next, the Board found that 

claim 5’s “short horizontal lines” were but a design choice

and provide the same functionality as the horizontal lines 

disclosed in JP ’889. Id. at *4. Last, the Board found that 

Magna failed to provide adequate evidence of secondary 

considerations of nonobviousness. Id. at *4–5. 

Magna timely appealed from both decisions, and we 

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

DISCUSSION

We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo, In re 

Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and the 

Board’s factual findings underlying those determinations 

for substantial evidence, In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 

1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Substantial evidence . . . means 

such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept 

as adequate to support a conclusion.” Consol. Edison Co. 

v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 217 (1938). Obviousness is a 

question of law based on underlying factual findings, In re 

Baxter, 678 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012), such as what 

a reference teaches and “[s]uch secondary considerations 

as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, [and] 

Case: 14-1801 Document: 31-2 Page: 6 Filed: 05/07/2015
IN RE: MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC. 7

failure of others,” Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 

17 (1966). 

A 

With respect to the ’447 patent, Magna argues that 

the PTO did not establish a prima facie case of obviousness because Wang does not teach, suggest, or motivate 

the use of CMOS cameras in vehicular vision systems. 

Instead, Magna contends, Wang teaches away from such 

use because CMOS imager technology “w[as viewed] to be 

insensitive to low light conditions (and thus not particularly suitable for use as a rear backup camera at night), to 

have inferior image quality and to be difficult and costly 

to make.” ’447 Appellant’s Br. 21. Magna further argues 

that it provided strong evidence of nonobviousness, such 

as commercial success, long felt need and failure of others, 

skepticism of experts, unexpected results, copying, and 

licensing. Id. at 37–58. 

The PTO responds that each of the Board’s findings is 

supported by substantial evidence, and that Magna failed 

to provide adequate evidence of secondary considerations

of nonobviousness. We agree, and therefore affirm the 

Board’s conclusion that claims 45 and 107 would have 

been obvious over JP ’700, JP ’889, and Wang. 

As an initial matter, substantial evidence supports 

the Board’s finding that Wang teaches the use of CMOS 

cameras in “smart vision systems.” ’447 Joint Appendix 

(“’447 J.A.”) 297 (“We introduce a new capability that 

extends the CMOS ASIC marketplace in[to] a sector of . . . 

image sensing and processing, covering applications from 

electronic cameras to ‘smart’ vision systems.”). It was not 

error for the Board to further find that vehicular rearview 

vision systems, such as those disclosed in JP ’700 and JP 

’889, are such “smart vision systems.” Decision I at *2. 

Nonetheless, an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation is not necessary to support a conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415–16 

Case: 14-1801 Document: 31-2 Page: 7 Filed: 05/07/2015
8 IN RE: MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC. 

(2007). Obviousness is a flexible inquiry, and we are 

tasked with determining whether a claimed improvement 

“is more than the predictable use of prior art elements 

according to their established functions.” Id. at 417. 

To that end, replacing the CCD camera of JP ’700 and 

JP ’889 with a CMOS camera was but “the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field” that 

“achieved [a] predictable result.” Decision I at *2 (referring to KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–16). As the Board found, 

Wang highlights several weaknesses of CCD technology, 

namely, that it appears “cumbersome, power-hungry and 

expensive.” Id.; see also ’447 J.A. 297. Wang then notes

that “high quality sensors” can instead be “implemented 

entirely” using CMOS technology to mitigate those shortcomings. Id. The claimed improvement of replacing the 

CCD cameras of JP ’700 and JP ’889 with the CMOS 

camera of Wang is thus nothing more “than the predictable use of prior art elements.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. We 

find Magna’s arguments to the contrary unpersuasive. 

Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s finding 

that Magna lacks sufficient evidence to show nonobviousness. With respect to Magna’s commercial success argument, for example, the Board correctly found that Magna 

fails to relate its alleged 35% market share in the vehicular vision system industry to its use of a CMOS camera. 

Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1311–12 

(Fed. Cir. 2006) (noting that a nexus must exist between a 

product’s commercial success and the claimed invention); 

see also ’447 Appellant’s Br. 53 (generally stating: “that so 

many vehicles across so many automakers are at dealerships today with rear vision systems and graphic overlay 

and CMOS imaging devices and other features as claimed 

is clear and convincing evidence of commercial success”). 

Nor can Magna substantiate its claim of skepticism of 

experts. As we have noted, such arguments often require

a showing of technical infeasibility or manufacturing 

Case: 14-1801 Document: 31-2 Page: 8 Filed: 05/07/2015
IN RE: MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC. 9

uncertainty. See Arkie Lures, Inc. v. Gene Larew Tackle, 

Inc., 119 F.3d 953, 958 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (finding that 

“violent explosions” that render manufacturing “unsafe” 

support such an argument). Yet here, Magna relies only

on high costs and other companies’ purported preferences. 

Such evidence “does not raise doubt that a CMOS camerabased automotive vision system can be manufactured.” 

Decision I at *5; see Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United 

States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[T]hat the

two disclosed apparatus would not be combined by businessmen for economic reasons is not the same as saying 

that it could not be done because skilled persons in the art 

felt that there was some technological incompatibility 

that prevented their combinations.”). 

We therefore hold that the Board correctly concluded 

that it would have been obvious to use a CMOS camera in 

the vehicular vision systems of JP ’700 and JP ’889. 

B 

With respect to the ’331 patent, Magna argues that 

the PTO did not establish a prima facie case because the 

JP ’889 reference teaches using horizontal lines to indicate a positional relationship, whereas the claimed invention uses horizontal lines to generate a specific distance 

measurement. And, Magna contends, JP ’889’s descending scale cannot indicate distance. With respect to claim 

5, Magna argues that the short horizontal lines are not 

just a design choice. Last, Magna submits that it provided strong evidence of nonobviousness. 

The PTO responds that the Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, and that Magna’s evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness lacks 

a nexus to the claimed invention. We agree, and therefore 

affirm the Board’s conclusion that claims 3 and 5–9 would 

have been obvious over JP ’700 and JP ’889. 

Case: 14-1801 Document: 31-2 Page: 9 Filed: 05/07/2015
10 IN RE: MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC. 

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding 

that JP ’889 teaches the graphic overlay claimed in the 

’331 patent, i.e., regularly spaced horizontal lines that 

show the driver the relative position of objects behind the

vehicle. ’331 Joint Appendix (“’331 J.A.”) 262–65. We 

find Magna’s argument to the contrary unpersuasive for 

two reasons. First, Magna’s argument assumes that the 

’331 patent requires a distance determination. Yet as the 

Board correctly found, the claims only require “indicating 

distances.” ’331 patent col. 10 ll. 56–63. JP ’889 does not 

need to teach quantitative measurements to render the 

graphic overlay of the ’331 patent obvious. Even so, as 

the Board found, JP ’889 conceives of providing numerical 

indicators. Decision II at *3; see also ’331 J.A. 261 (fig. 2). 

The fact that the numbers lie on a descending scale does 

not negate the fact that a person of ordinary skill would

have been motivated to apply that scale, perhaps inverted 

for design purposes, to the graphic overlay of the ’331 

patent. 

Second, Magna’s argument emphasizes an alleged distinction between a positional relationship and an indication of a distance. Even assuming arguendo that such a 

distinction exists, the ’331 patent essentially treats the 

two terms coextensively: “[h]orizontal grid markings on 

the display may be provided to indicate distances behind 

the vehicle at particular markings. Such a grid would 

allow the driver to judge the relative position of vehicles 

behind the equipped vehicle.” Id. col. 10 ll. 56–59 (emphases added); see also id. col. 1 ll. 60–66. All that the 

’331 patent requires is a graphic overlay to indicate the 

distance, i.e., relative position, of objects behind a vehicle. 

And, as the Board found, that is precisely what JP ’889 

teaches. 

Magna’s remaining arguments are similarly unpersuasive. As the Board found, JP ’889 teaches horizontal 

lines spaced at regular intervals, and shortening the 

length of the horizontal lines “would be an obvious design 

Case: 14-1801 Document: 31-2 Page: 10 Filed: 05/07/2015
IN RE: MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC. 11

choice within the skill of the art.” In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 

553, 555 (CCPA 1975). In this context, short horizontal 

lines provide the same information and functionality as 

long horizontal lines, and cannot be used as a distinguishing factor to render the claims nonobvious. Furthermore, 

as the Board found, Magna failed to provide adequate 

evidence of nonobviousness. Much like in the ’447 appeal, 

Magna fails to establish a nexus between the secondary 

considerations of nonobviousness and the claimed invention, see, e.g., In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1069–70 (Fed. Cir. 

2011) (noting that it is difficult to prove nexus without a 

showing that the claimed improvement causes success 

that the prior art would not); In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 

140 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that the inventor’s opinion 

as to the purchaser’s reason for buying the product is 

insufficient to demonstrate a nexus), and thus cannot 

rebut the prima facie showing. 

We therefore hold that the Board correctly concluded 

that it would have been obvious to use the graphic overlay 

of JP ’889 with the vehicular vision system of JP ’700. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Magna’s remaining arguments, 

but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, 

the Board’s decisions affirming the rejections of claims 45 

and 107 of the ’447 patent and claims 3 and 5–9 of the 

’331 patent are affirmed. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 14-1801 Document: 31-2 Page: 11 Filed: 05/07/2015