PTAB

IPR2016-00488

Smart Microwave Sensors GmbH v. Wavetronix LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Vehicle Traffic Sensor
  • Brief Description: The ’557 patent relates to a vehicle traffic sensor, specifically a radar device for detecting or monitoring vehicles on a roadway. The sensor includes a transmit portion that transmits a signal toward vehicles and a receiver portion that receives signals reflected from them to generate traffic data.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Madjar - Claims 9, 12, 22, 23, and 25 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 over Madjar.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Madjar ("A novel DDS based 94 GHz high linearity FMCW RF front end," a 1996 article).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Madjar disclosed every element of the challenged claims. Madjar described a Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) RF sensor useful for applications including traffic control, which inherently operates "above-ground." The system was built on a single circuit board and used a Direct Digital Synthesizer (DDS) to create a digitally generated linear FM chirp, satisfying the "digitally generated modulated signal generator" limitation. Madjar's sensor transmitted this signal, received reflections from targets, and processed the resulting signal with an FFT processor to determine target range, which Petitioner contended constituted the claimed "traffic data." Madjar also disclosed using a single antenna for both transmitting and receiving via a circulator, anticipating claim 23, and an up-converter, anticipating claim 25.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Herman in view of Farmer - Claims 9 and 22 are obvious over Herman in view of Farmer.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Herman (Patent 5,008,678) and Farmer (Patent 6,085,151).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Herman disclosed a vehicle-mounted radar sensor with transmit and receive components on a single printed circuit board for detecting other vehicles. However, Herman was generic about how the radar signal was generated, stating it could be of "any desired type (FMCW, pulsed Doppler, etc.)." Farmer allegedly supplied the missing element by teaching a detailed implementation of a "digitally generated modulated signal generator" using a DDS in a similar vehicle collision detection system. Farmer’s disclosure of generating a data signal representing the range and velocity of target vehicles would have been obvious to include in Herman to provide collision avoidance functionality.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Farmer's specific DDS technology with Herman's general radar system. Herman expressly contemplated using an FMCW signal but did not disclose how to generate it. Farmer provided a known, low-cost, and accurate method for doing so. The motivation was to implement a functional and commercially viable signal generator within the architecture described by Herman.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved implementing a known signal generator from Farmer into a known radar system from Herman, a straightforward integration that would have yielded a predictable result.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Boles in view of Perret or Herman - Claim 9 is obvious over Boles in view of Perret or Herman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Boles (Patent 5,506,584), Perret (Patent 5,423,080), and Herman (Patent 5,008,678).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Boles disclosed a radar sensor for intelligent highway systems that used a DDS to digitally generate a modulated signal. However, Boles did not explicitly teach mounting the transmit and receiver circuit components on a single circuit board. Perret and Herman both taught microwave transceiver and radar sensor components, respectively, fabricated on a single printed circuit board.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to fill the gap in Boles's disclosure by applying the known and advantageous manufacturing technique from either Perret or Herman. Both secondary references highlighted the benefits of a single-board design, such as reduced cost, easier manufacturing, and smaller size. Applying this common design principle to Boles's system was a common-sense approach to creating a more practical and affordable sensor.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining the radar components of Boles onto a single circuit board using the standard manufacturing methods taught by Perret or Herman was a predictable design choice that would have yielded a functional and improved device.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional obviousness challenges, including grounds based on combinations of Russell, Chang, Analog Devices, Kinasewitz, and others. These grounds generally relied on similar theories of combining known digital signal generation techniques (like DDS) with known radar system architectures and manufacturing methods (like single-board construction and planar antennas).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "above-ground traffic sensor": Petitioner argued this term, explicitly defined in the ’557 patent’s specification as a sensor not embedded in the roadway, should be interpreted broadly to encompass sensors mounted on vehicles or stationary poles, consistent with the patent's examples.
  • "radio frequency circuit board": Petitioner proposed a plain meaning construction of "any board having at least one radio frequency circuit component thereon." Relying on the doctrine of claim differentiation with claim 13 (which explicitly adds a planar antenna), Petitioner argued that claim 9 does not require the antenna to be mounted on the circuit board.
  • "digitally generated modulated signal generator": Petitioner argued for a broad interpretation to include any component or set of components that generates a modulated signal where either the generation or the modulation (or both) is achieved digitally. This construction was based on the specification's disclosure of various embodiments beyond a simple DDS.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 9, 10, 12, 13, 22, 23, and 25 of Patent 6,693,557 as unpatentable.