PTAB

IPR2019-00905

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 methods and systems for an automotive adaptive cruise control (ACC) system. The invention is directed to improving ACC performance in turns by reducing vehicle speed based on the vehicle's position and lateral acceleration, and by projecting the vehicle's path to distinguish between threatening in-path objects and non-threatening out-of-path objects to avoid unnecessary braking and improve driver comfort.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Method Claims over Brochure and AAPA - Claims 1, 6, and 9 are obvious over the BMW Brochure in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: BMW Brochure (a 2002 printed publication describing BMW's ACC system) and AAPA (disclosures within the ’416 patent specification regarding the state of prior art).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued the BMW Brochure taught an ACC system that used a lateral acceleration sensor to predict a vehicle's path through a curve, detected objects in that path with radar, and reduced vehicle speed if an in-path object was detected, thus meeting most limitations of independent claim 1. Dependent claim 6, requiring speed reduction when lateral acceleration exceeds a predetermined limit, and claim 9, requiring a step of measuring lateral acceleration, were allegedly taught by the Brochure’s description of its integrated Dynamic Stability Control (DSC) unit, which monitors such data and intervenes via braking.
    • Motivation to Combine: The primary element not explicitly taught by the Brochure was "ignoring the object for braking purposes" if it is not in the vehicle's path. Petitioner pointed to the AAPA in the ’416 patent, which identified unnecessary braking for "out-of-path stationary targets" as a known problem. A POSITA would thus be motivated to modify the Brochure's system to solve this well-documented issue by ensuring the system only acted on confirmed in-path threats.
    • Expectation of Success: Because the Brochure's system was already capable of distinguishing in-path from out-of-path targets to project the vehicle’s trajectory, Petitioner argued that implementing the final logic step to only brake for in-path targets was a simple, predictable design choice with a high expectation of success.

Ground 2: Adding Yaw Rate Calculations from Ishizu - Claims 2 and 3 are obvious over the BMW Brochure and AAPA in view of Ishizu.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: BMW Brochure, AAPA, and Ishizu (Application # 2001/0044691).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claims 2 and 3, which add steps of measuring vehicle speed, yaw rate, and rate of change of yaw rate (claim 2), and then using that data to calculate lateral acceleration (claim 3). Petitioner asserted that Ishizu explicitly taught a vehicle speed control system that calculates lateral acceleration using vehicle speed and yaw rate sensor data to effectively control speed around curves.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA improving the Brochure's ACC system would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Ishizu to enhance the accuracy and reliability of its turn-detection capabilities. Petitioner argued that using multiple, redundant sensor inputs—such as a direct measurement from an accelerometer (Brochure) and a calculated value from yaw/speed sensors (Ishizu)—was a known engineering technique for creating more robust and fault-tolerant vehicle safety systems.
    • Expectation of Success: Ishizu provided the exact equations and sensor inputs required for the calculation, making its integration with the Brochure's system a predictable task that would yield the expected benefit of improved accuracy.

Ground 3: Obviousness of System Claims over Brochure, Schmitt, and Khodabhai - Claims 10-12 are obvious over the BMW Brochure, Schmitt, and Khodabhai.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: BMW Brochure, 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 mapped the Brochure to the baseline ACC system components. To meet the limitation of a controller "operative to reduce the vehicle speed according to a vehicle position in the turn," Petitioner relied on Schmitt, which taught a traction control system that reduces speed upon detecting curve entry to prevent excessive lateral acceleration. To meet limitations in dependent claims 11 and 12 concerning object range/angle signals and curvature calculation, Petitioner cited Khodabhai, which taught a collision avoidance system using radar to determine an object's range, angle, and range rate to assess if it is in a curved vehicle path.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to create a superior ACC system by systematically combining solutions to known problems. They would combine Schmitt's turn-based speed reduction logic with the Brochure's ACC to solve the known hazard of excessive speed in turns. They would further integrate Khodabhai's more sophisticated object and path analysis techniques to better address the known problem of misidentifying out-of-path objects.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that because each reference provided a targeted solution to a known problem in the same field of vehicle control systems, combining these known elements involved applying established engineering principles to achieve the predictable result of a safer and more effective ACC system.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges for claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, and 14 based on various combinations of the BMW Brochure, AAPA, Ishizu, Khodabhai, and Schmitt, relying on similar motivations to combine the references to add specific sensor inputs and calculation methods.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial of the petition would be unwarranted. The petition referenced a previously filed IPR on the ’416 patent by an unrelated party (Unified Patents, IPR2019-00481) and contended that under the General Plastic factors, the Board should institute this petition. Key arguments asserted that BMW, as a defendant in co-pending district court litigation, has a strong and particularized interest in the proceeding, was not a party to the prior IPR, and raises different grounds. Petitioner also stated that the petition was filed early in the litigation timeline and would not strain Board resources.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-14 of Patent 7,925,416 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.