PTAB

IPR2015-00605

Cequent Performance Products Inc v. Hopkins Mfg Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Towed Vehicle Brake Controller
  • Brief Description: The ’551 patent discloses a brake controller for a towed vehicle that uses a multi-axis accelerometer. The system processes signals from the accelerometer to determine braking forces and activate the towed vehicle's brakes in a manner that is insensitive to the controller's mounting position or orientation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Duvernay and Van Meel - Claims 1-8 are obvious over Duvernay in view of Van Meel.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Duvernay (Patent 6,012,780) and Van Meel (European Patent Application EP0769701).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Duvernay disclosed all elements of the challenged claims except for the use of a "multi-axis" accelerometer and the "summing" of its sensed accelerations. Duvernay taught a brake controller with a microcontroller and a single-axis accelerometer that compensates for tilt angle when calculating deceleration. Van Meel, in the context of vehicle control systems, taught using a multi-axis accelerometer (comprising two acceleration sensors) to reliably determine vehicle tilt and longitudinal acceleration by adding and subtracting signals from the sensors. Petitioner asserted that the microcontroller in Duvernay constituted the claimed "circuitry" for processing sensor signals and activating the brakes.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to solve the same problem: accurately determining a vehicle's longitudinal acceleration for a control system. Duvernay recognized the limitations of a single-axis accelerometer and compensated for tilt. Van Meel provided an improved, known technique to account for tilt by explicitly measuring it with a multi-axis accelerometer. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Van Meel's superior tilt-and-acceleration measurement technique into Duvernay's brake controller to achieve more reliable performance and greater freedom in the controller's mounting angle.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be a straightforward application of a known technique (from Van Meel) to a known device (from Duvernay) to yield predictable results. Van Meel explicitly suggested its techniques were suitable for vehicle braking applications, ensuring a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Duvernay and ADXL202 Data Sheet - Claims 3-6 are obvious over Duvernay in view of the ADXL202 Data Sheet.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Duvernay (Patent 6,012,780) and the ADXL202 Data Sheet (an Analog Devices publication from 1998).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an argument of simple substitution. Petitioner contended that Duvernay taught a brake controller using a single-axis accelerometer (specifically suggesting the ADX05 from Analog Devices). The ADXL202 Data Sheet disclosed a commercially available dual-axis accelerometer from the same manufacturer, Analog Devices, and taught how to use it as a tilt sensor. The combination of Duvernay's controller with the ADXL202 accelerometer was alleged to meet the limitations of the challenged claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was based on substituting a known, improved component for an older one from the same manufacturer to achieve a predictable improvement. A POSITA seeking to enhance the Duvernay system would have found it obvious to replace the single-axis ADX05 accelerometer with the readily available dual-axis ADXL202 accelerometer from Analog Devices. The data sheet itself provided the necessary information to implement the component as a tilt sensor.
    • Expectation of Success: Because multi-axis accelerometers were commercially available and their use for tilt sensing was well-understood (as shown by the data sheet), a POSITA would have had a high expectation of successfully integrating the ADXL202 into Duvernay's design to predictably yield more accurate tilt-compensated deceleration measurements.

Ground 3: Obviousness over McGrath and Van Meel - Claims 1-8 are obvious over McGrath in view of Van Meel.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: McGrath (Patent 5,620,236) and Van Meel (European Patent Application EP0769701).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that McGrath disclosed an electronic brake controller that used a pendulum-based acceleration sensor to generate a brake control signal. Crucially, McGrath suggested that "various devices can be used for generating the brake control signal," explicitly contemplating the use of alternative sensors. Van Meel, as in Ground 1, taught a multi-axis accelerometer for reliably determining vehicle tilt and acceleration. Combining Van Meel's multi-axis sensor with McGrath's brake controller framework was argued to render the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: Given the known limitations of pendulum-based sensors and McGrath's explicit suggestion to use other types of sensors, a POSITA would have been motivated to seek a more reliable alternative. Van Meel provided an obvious solution by teaching a multi-axis accelerometer specifically designed "to create a device... which allows vehicular tilt and/or vehicular acceleration to be reliably determined." Replacing the pendulum in McGrath with the advanced sensor from Van Meel was presented as an obvious design choice to improve the system's accuracy and reliability.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was a predictable implementation of an improved sensor into a system that expressly invited such modifications. A POSITA would have reasonably expected that substituting Van Meel's modern electronic sensor for McGrath's mechanical one would successfully and predictably improve the performance of the brake controller.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including claims 3-6 over McGrath and the ADXL202 Data Sheet, and claims 1-8 over Duvernay and Murphy (Patent 5,951,122). These grounds relied on similar substitution and combination rationales, with Murphy being cited for its teaching of using a three-axis accelerometer in a brake controller to compute total acceleration by summing vectors.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-8 of the ’551 patent as unpatentable.