PTAB

IPR2019-00904

BMW Of North America LLC v. Carrum Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Automatic Lateral Acceleration Limiting and Non Threat Target Rejection
  • Brief Description: The ’416 patent discloses a system and method for an adaptive cruise control (ACC) system that enhances safety during turns. The system uses a lateral acceleration sensor to detect when the vehicle is in a turn, reduces the vehicle’s speed based on its position in the turn, and identifies and ignores objects not in the vehicle’s path to prevent unnecessary braking.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1, 6, and 9 over Winner in View of Schmitt

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Winner (Application # 2002/0165657) and Schmitt (Patent 6,456,924). Petitioner also relied on Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) from the ’416 patent’s specification.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Winner disclosed all elements of independent claim 1 except for "determining when the vehicle is in a turn based on a detected change in the vehicle lateral acceleration." Winner taught an ACC system for controlling speed in curves, determining a vehicle’s path, detecting objects, and reducing speed only for in-path objects. Petitioner asserted that Schmitt supplied the missing element by teaching a traction control system that ascertains curve entry and exit by monitoring changes in the vehicle’s transverse (i.e., lateral) acceleration. Dependent claim 6 (reducing speed when lateral acceleration exceeds a limit) and claim 9 (measuring lateral acceleration) were also taught by Schmitt’s disclosure of controlling vehicle systems based on measured lateral acceleration exceeding a threshold.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), faced with the known problem of managing vehicle speed and preventing excessive lateral acceleration in turns (a problem acknowledged in the ’416 patent’s AAPA), would have been motivated to improve Winner’s ACC system. A POSITA would logically look to known methods for turn detection, such as the method taught in Schmitt, and incorporate Schmitt’s use of lateral acceleration sensors into Winner's system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these references, as it involved incorporating a known sensor type (taught by Schmitt) into an existing ACC framework (taught by Winner) to improve its performance in curves, a predictable application of known technologies.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 2 and 3 over Winner, Schmitt, and Ishizu

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Winner (Application # 2002/0165657), Schmitt (Patent 6,456,924), and Ishizu (Application # 2001/0044691).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted dependent claims 2 and 3, which added steps of measuring vehicle speed and yaw rate (claim 2) and using that data to calculate lateral acceleration (claim 3). Petitioner argued that while Winner and Schmitt established the base system, Ishizu explicitly taught a vehicle speed control system that calculates lateral acceleration using measured vehicle speed and yaw rate data. Ishizu disclosed using these calculated values to adjust vehicle speed appropriately when traveling on a curved road.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to enhance the accuracy of the turn-detection system of Winner and Schmitt would combine Ishizu’s teachings. Using multiple data sources (direct measurement from Schmitt, calculation from speed/yaw rate per Ishizu) to determine lateral acceleration would increase the system's confidence and reliability, a straightforward engineering improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was asserted to be predictable, as it involved applying Ishizu's established mathematical relationship between speed, yaw rate, and lateral acceleration to the ACC system of Winner.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 10-12 over Winner, Schmitt, and Khodabhai

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Winner (Application # 2002/0165657), Schmitt (Patent 6,456,924), and Khodabhai (Patent 5,959,569).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground challenged independent system claim 10 and its dependents. Petitioner asserted Winner taught the base ACC system and Schmitt taught the lateral acceleration sensor for turn detection. Khodabhai was argued to teach the remaining structural elements: a controller with control logic and an object detection sensor (e.g., radar) operative to determine if an object is in the vehicle’s path during a turn. Khodabhai’s collision avoidance system was specifically designed to determine if obstacles were in a vehicle’s path, even on a curved path. Dependent claims 11 and 12, relating to generating range/angle signals and determining curvature, were also taught by Khodabhai’s detailed disclosure of its controller and sensor operations.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the method of Winner and Schmitt would need to use a controller and object detection logic to make it functional. Khodabhai provided a known, off-the-shelf solution for this exact purpose: a controller and sensor system for path prediction and object detection in turns. A POSITA would combine these known components for their intended and well-understood functions.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating the controller and sensor logic from Khodabhai into the system framework of Winner and Schmitt would have been a predictable assembly of known elements to create the claimed system.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, and 14 based on various combinations of Winner, Schmitt, Ishizu, Khodabhai, and AAPA, but relied on similar design modification and combination theories.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be unwarranted. Citing the General Plastic factors, Petitioner asserted that because it is a defendant in a related district court litigation and was not a party to a prior IPR filed by a different entity (Unified Patents, IPR2019-00481), the Board should institute trial. Petitioner further argued that this petition was filed early in the litigation timeline and presented different prior art and arguments than the earlier-filed IPR, thus not straining the Board's resources or creating significant overlap.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-14 of the ’416 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.