PTAB

IPR2019-00904

BMW of North America, LLC v. Carrum Technologies, LLC, which is wholly owned by Pratima Instruments, LLC (a Delaware limited liability company)

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Automatic Lateral Acceleration Limiting and Non Threat Target Rejection
  • Brief Description: The ’416 patent discloses a method and system for an adaptive cruise control (ACC) system. The system determines when a vehicle is in a turn by detecting changes in lateral acceleration and reduces the vehicle's speed accordingly, while also identifying and ignoring objects that are not in the vehicle's path during the turn to avoid unnecessary braking.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 6, and 9 are obvious over Winner in view of Schmitt (or Applicant Admitted Prior Art)

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Winner (Application # 2002/0165657), Schmitt (Patent 6,456,924), and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) from the ’416 patent 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 that controls speed in curves and distinguishes between in-path and out-of-path objects. Petitioner asserted that Schmitt filled this gap by explicitly teaching a system that detects a vehicle entering a curve by monitoring changes in lateral (transverse) acceleration and adjusts braking accordingly. Dependent claims 6 (reducing speed when lateral acceleration exceeds a limit) and 9 (measuring lateral acceleration) were also argued to be taught by Schmitt’s disclosure of controlling vehicle speed based on a predetermined lateral acceleration limit.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine Winner and Schmitt to solve the problem of excessive speed in turns, a known issue acknowledged in the ’416 patent itself (AAPA). Winner provided a base ACC system for curves, and a POSITA would have looked to known methods like Schmitt’s use of lateral acceleration sensors to improve turn detection and control, which was a simple and predictable design choice.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because Winner’s system was designed for curve navigation, and integrating Schmitt’s well-understood method of using lateral acceleration for turn detection was a straightforward application of known technologies to improve performance.

Ground 2: Claims 2 and 3 are obvious over Winner in view of 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 built upon the combination of Winner and Schmitt to address dependent claims 2 and 3. Claim 2 requires measuring vehicle speed and yaw rate to determine when the vehicle is in a turn. Petitioner argued that Ishizu taught a speed control system that explicitly used vehicle speed and yaw rate sensors to calculate lateral acceleration for controlling speed in curves. Claim 3, which depends on claim 2, further requires using this data to calculate lateral acceleration. Ishizu was argued to disclose the exact equations for performing this calculation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to improve the accuracy of the turn detection in the Winner/Schmitt system would be motivated to incorporate Ishizu's teachings. Using multiple data sources (direct measurement from Schmitt, calculation from yaw rate/speed from Ishizu) to determine lateral acceleration was a known technique for increasing system confidence and reliability.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was asserted to be predictable. Ishizu provided a known method for calculating lateral acceleration, which could be readily integrated into the controller of the base system to provide a more robust turn detection mechanism.

Ground 3: Claims 4, 5, and 8 are obvious over Winner in view of Schmitt, Ishizu, and Khodabhai

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Winner (Application # 2002/0165657), Schmitt (Patent 6,456,924), Ishizu (Application # 2001/0044691), and Khodabhai (Patent 5,959,569).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Khodabhai to address further dependent claims. Claims 4 and 5 relate to filtering lateral acceleration data and processing it to determine if the vehicle is turning. Petitioner contended that Khodabhai taught a collision avoidance system that explicitly filtered sensor data, including from a lateral accelerometer, to ensure an accurate prediction of the vehicle's path. Claim 8 requires verifying an object's position using yaw rate, speed, range, angle, and road curvature data. Khodabhai was asserted to teach using these exact parameters to determine if an object is in the vehicle's path.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to add Khodabhai’s teachings to improve the accuracy and robustness of the ACC system. Filtering sensor data, as taught by Khodabhai, is a fundamental step in signal processing to reduce noise. Furthermore, using multiple parameters (range, angle, etc.) to verify an object's path, as also taught by Khodabhai, was a known way to make the system more reliable, especially in complex scenarios like turns.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining these known techniques for improving sensor data accuracy and path verification would have been a predictable implementation for a POSITA designing a modern ACC system.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges for claims 7 and 10-14. These grounds relied on the same core prior art references (Winner, Schmitt, Ishizu, Khodabhai, and AAPA) and argued that the system-level claims (10-14) were obvious for the same reasons as the method claims, and that the remaining dependent claims were taught by specific, straightforward disclosures within the same references.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be unwarranted. It contended that although a prior IPR had been filed by a different party (Unified Patents, IPR2019-00481), BMW, as the defendant in active litigation, should be allowed to file its own petition. Petitioner asserted that its petition raised different grounds and combinations of prior art than the Unified Patents IPR. It argued that the timing of the petition—filed well before the Patent Owner's preliminary response in the other IPR—would not strain the Board's resources or disrupt the one-year FWD deadline.

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.