PTAB

IPR2019-00249

SZ DJI Technology Co Ltd v. Autel Robotics USA LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and method for autonomous vehicle speed control
  • Brief Description: The ’174 patent relates to a system for calculating a desired speed for an autonomous vehicle. The system’s speed planner processes data from sensors and an optional path plan to generate a speed and a corresponding "speed command category," which indicates the reason for the speed selection (e.g., to enforce a speed limit or avoid an obstacle).

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Andersson and Urmson - Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are obvious over Andersson in view of Urmson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Andersson (Patent 6,836,719) and Urmson (a 2006 Journal of Field Robotics article).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Andersson, which discloses an autonomous vehicle control system, teaches most limitations of independent claim 1. Andersson's system includes sensors, a "speed plan generator" (the claimed speed planner), a "system controller" (the control system), and actuators. Petitioner contended that Andersson’s display of warnings like "Slow down! Dangerous curve ahead" teaches the "speed command category" limitation by providing information that indicates why a particular speed was selected.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Urmson with Andersson because Andersson's disclosure is high-level and lacks specific algorithms for calculating desired speeds from sensor data. Urmson, an article detailing autonomous navigation, provides these specific algorithms for a speed planner, using inputs like road friction and path curvature, which are already contemplated by Andersson. The combination would improve the safety, reliability, and passenger comfort of Andersson's system.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have yielded predictable results, as it would only require minor programming modifications to Andersson's speed plan generator to incorporate the well-defined algorithms taught by Urmson.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Andersson, Urmson, and Augenbraun - Claim 3 is obvious over Andersson in view of Urmson and Augenbraun.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Andersson (Patent 6,836,719), Urmson (a 2006 journal article), and Augenbraun (Application # 2007/0061040).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Andersson-Urmson combination to address claim 3, which requires the speed planner to be implemented as an Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) or a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA). While the base combination does not specify the hardware, Augenbraun teaches that its "electronics module," which performs speed planning functions, can be implemented as an ASIC or FPGA.
    • Motivation to Combine: The primary combination lacks specific hardware details for the speed planner. A POSITA seeking to build the system would be motivated to look to other references like Augenbraun that disclose known implementation options for such control modules. Using an ASIC or FPGA was a common design choice for implementing logic.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that implementing logic on an ASIC or FPGA was a well-known practice with a limited number of ways to do so, ensuring the modification would be obvious to try and would yield predictable results without undue experimentation.

Ground 4: Obviousness over Andersson, Urmson, and Fregene - Claim 8 is obvious over Andersson in view of Urmson and Fregene.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Andersson (Patent 6,836,719), Urmson (a 2006 journal article), and Fregene (Application # 2007/0078600).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses claim 8, which depends from claim 7 and adds limitations for assigning priority to constraints and allowing the violation of a lower-priority constraint to satisfy a higher-priority one. Fregene discloses a collision avoidance system with distinct "nominal constraints" (lower priority, for normal operation) and "emergency constraints" (higher priority). Fregene's system is designed to override or violate the nominal constraints to satisfy the higher-priority emergency constraints, thereby avoiding a collision.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Fregene's teachings to improve the Andersson-Urmson system's ability to avoid collisions, a critical function for autonomous vehicles. This would allow the vehicle to operate smoothly under normal conditions but reserve maximum performance for emergencies, enhancing overall safety.
    • Expectation of Success: The modification would be straightforward to implement. Because Andersson’s system already categorizes speeds for different scenarios (e.g., curves), adding a priority hierarchy to these scenarios would be a simple programming change with predictable outcomes.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations including Ahmed-Zaid (Patent 6,968,266) and Mandow (a 1997 IEEE publication) to address alternative claim constructions or provide cumulative teachings for specific limitations like safe speed calculations and operating modes.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "speed command category" (Claim 1): Petitioner proposed this term means "information that indicates why the desired speed was selected." This construction was argued to be consistent with the patent's specification, where examples like "speed selected to enforce path curvature constraint" explain the reason for a speed choice. Petitioner contended this construction was broad enough to be taught by Andersson's driver warning messages.
  • "speed commands" (Claim 1): Petitioner proposed this term means "commands or signals to adjust the vehicle's speed." This construction was based on the plain meaning of the words, dictionary definitions, and the patent’s disclosure that the control system transmits signals to actuators like the brakes and throttle.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-8 of Patent 7,979,174 as unpatentable.