Appeal 2007-2217
Application 11/231,232
2-4). Appellants add that Schierbeek does not employ an image sensor as a
control signal and therefore fails to disclose an exterior status indicator
signal as a function of at least one image as claimed (Reply Br. 4-6).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 9.
Schofield discloses a rearview vision system that displays an image
synthesized from outputs from multiple image capture devices 14, 16 so that
a composite image depicting the vehicle’s rearward field of view is
displayed (Schofield, abstract, col. 5, ll. 48-64; Figs. 1 and 3). To this end,
the outputs of the image capture devices are provided to image processor 18.
Image processor supplies a video signal to an image generator 74 that is
coupled to display 20. Using display 20, the image is projected directly
toward the driver (Schofield, Figs. 5 and 12-14; col. 9, ll. 18-20; col. 10, ll.
53-56).
As shown in Figure 14 of Schofield, the illumination level of the
display 20 can be set responsive to an ambient light input 104 indicative of
the ambient light level around the vehicle. To this end, image processor 18
produces a luminance intensity signal 102 responsive to the ambient light
level (Schofield, col. 10, ll. 57-64). Significantly, ambient light input 104
may be supplied with a signal developed by one or more of the image
capture devices 14, 16 -- a signal based upon an average intensity value
sensed by some or all of the pixels in the image capture device(s) (Schofield,
col. 11, ll. 26-31). Alternatively, Schofield indicates that the ambient light
input 104 can be produced by a vehicle headlight control system responsive
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013