PTAB

IPR2014-00281

Ford Motor Co v. Cruise Control Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Cruise Control Indicator
  • Brief Description: The ’463 patent discloses a cruise control indicator system for vehicles. The system’s purported improvement is a persistent visual display that indicates the preset cruise control speed, even when the system is not actively controlling the vehicle's speed, such as during driver-initiated braking or acceleration.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1-5, 12-16, 18-19, 21, 25-28, 34-36 under 35 U.S.C. §102 over Narita

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Narita (Japanese Patent Publication No. S60-174329).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Narita discloses every element of the challenged claims. Narita describes a "vehicle speed automatic controlling device" that includes a speed controller, a memory for storing a preset speed, an enable switch ("main switch"), and a set speed input, mapping to the preamble and elements [a]-[d] of independent claim 1. Crucially, Narita teaches a speedometer with two digital displays: an "actual vehicle speed display unit" and a "stored vehicle speed display unit." Petitioner contended this second unit is the claimed "feedback system" that provides a persistent indication of the memorized speed, even during temporary acceleration or braking, as depicted in Narita's figures. The figures explicitly show the preset speed display remaining constant while the actual speed changes, thereby satisfying the core functional limitations of the claims.

Ground 2: Anticipation of Claims 18-19, 26, 29-31 under 35 U.S.C. §102 over Nagashima

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nagashima (Japanese Published Utility Application No. H4-102059).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Nagashima anticipates claims directed to an analog display implementation (claims 26, 29-31). Nagashima discloses a cruise control system integrated into a conventional analog speedometer. This system includes a first visual display (the speedometer needle indicating actual speed) and a second visual display comprised of a plurality of individual LEDs arranged around the speedometer dial. Each LED is associated with a specific vehicle speed, and the one corresponding to the preset speed is illuminated. For claim 19, which requires the display to be distinguishable post-braking, Petitioner pointed to Nagashima’s teaching that the indicator LED is steadily lit during active cruising but blinks after braking to show the system is inactive but the speed is still stored.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 17, 20, 22-24, 27 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Narita in view of Beiswenger

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Narita (Japanese Patent Publication No. S60-174329) and Beiswenger (Patent 5,381,388).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that while Narita provides the primary cruise control system, it uses a simple dash to indicate an "unset" status. Challenged dependent claims (e.g., 17, 22-24) require more specific indicators, such as a "blinking '0'" or a "blinking numerical indicator." Beiswenger was cited for teaching an automotive digital clock that uses blinking zeros to indicate an unset state (e.g., "0:00") when powered on, before the time is set. This directly teaches the missing limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Narita's display with Beiswenger's method to provide a more familiar and informative user interface. Petitioner argued that using a blinking zero to indicate an unset or ready-to-set state was a well-known design choice for digital displays in vehicles, making its application to a cruise control display a predictable solution to a known design problem.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved a simple substitution of one known visual indicator for another on a digital display. This would not have required any undue experimentation and carried a high expectation of success.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted further challenges, including that claims 17, 20, 22-24, and 27 are obvious over Narita alone in view of the general knowledge of using blinking indicators to draw a driver's attention. Other grounds argued claims 1-5, 12, 15, and 34 are obvious over Narita in view of either the ’463 patent's Admitted Prior Art or the NHTSA 1989 Report, both of which were cited for teaching the conventional use and safety benefits of a separate enable switch.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed constructions for several key terms to clarify the scope of the claims for the inter partes review (IPR).
  • “engaging the system”: Construed as "operating the cruise control system to automatically control the vehicle at the preset speed." This distinguishes it from merely turning the system on.
  • “enabling” / “enabled”: Construed as "turning on" the system. This describes placing the system in a ready state, prior to it being "engaged" to control speed.
  • “unset status of the preset speed”: Construed as a state in which no preset speed is stored in the system's memory.
  • “activating” / “deactivated”: Construed as synonymous with "enabling" ("turning on") and "turning off," respectively.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an IPR and the cancellation of claims 1-5, 12-31, and 34-36 of Patent 6,324,463 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.