PTAB

IPR2019-00927

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 ’475 patent discloses a method and system for a vehicle equipped with an adaptive cruise control (ACC) system. The technology is directed at improving vehicle safety and performance by limiting lateral acceleration during turns—thereby preventing loss of control—and by rejecting stationary, non-threatening targets to avoid unnecessary braking.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Winner and Fukada - Claims 1-3, 5-7 are obvious over Winner in view of Fukada.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Winner (Application # 2002/0165657) and Fukada (Patent 5,627,756).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Winner and Fukada taught all limitations of independent claims 1 and 6. Winner was asserted to disclose an ACC system for controlling vehicle speed that operates in curves and monitors for objects in the vehicle's path using sensors. However, Petitioner noted that such systems were known to have a problem with maintaining excessive speed in turns. Fukada was asserted to address this exact problem by teaching a turn behavior control device that measures a vehicle's lateral acceleration, detects a change in that acceleration to determine when the vehicle is in a turn, and sends signals to reduce vehicle speed if the lateral acceleration exceeds a preset standard.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), starting with Winner's ACC system, would have recognized the known problem of excessive lateral acceleration in turns. To solve this, a POSITA would combine Winner with a system like Fukada's, which explicitly taught using changes in lateral acceleration to detect a turn and control vehicle speed for improved safety. The combination was presented as a predictable solution to a known problem.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. Integrating Fukada's turn-detection and speed-reduction logic into Winner's existing ACC framework would involve applying known engineering principles to achieve the predictable result of safer cornering.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Winner, Fukada, and Schmitt - Claims 4, 8, and 9 are obvious over Winner in view of Fukada and Schmitt.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Winner (Application # 2002/0165657), Fukada (Patent 5,627,756), and Schmitt (Patent 6,456,924).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Winner and Fukada to address dependent claims 4 and 8, which added the step of "determining the vehicle's position within the turn." Petitioner argued that Schmitt taught this missing element. Schmitt disclosed a traction control system that ascertained curve entry and exit by monitoring changes in transverse (lateral) acceleration. According to Petitioner, recognizing curve entry by detecting when the change in lateral acceleration exceeds a predefined limit, as taught by Schmitt, inherently determined the vehicle's position within the turn.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to enhance the Winner/Fukada system would be motivated to incorporate Schmitt's teachings. Adding Schmitt’s method for identifying specific phases of a turn (e.g., entry) would allow for more precise speed control, further improving the performance and safety of the ACC system.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Winner, Fukada, and Khodabhai - Claims 10-12 are obvious over Winner in view of Fukada and Khodabhai.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Winner (Application # 2002/0165657), Fukada (Patent 5,627,756), and Khodabhai (Patent 5,959,569).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims 10-12, which depended from claim 6 and added steps for more sophisticated object detection, including measuring object range, range rate, and angle, and determining the vehicle's path radius of curvature. Petitioner asserted that Khodabhai taught these specific limitations. Khodabhai disclosed a vehicle collision avoidance system that determined if an obstacle was in the host vehicle's path by using sensors to collect data on range, range rate, and azimuth angle, and then calculating the vehicle's radius of curvature to predict its path.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Khodabhai with the Winner/Fukada system to improve the reliability of the object detection and path-determination functions. While Winner taught basic object detection, Khodabhai provided a more robust and detailed method for accurately assessing whether a detected object posed a true threat in a curve, thereby addressing the ’475 patent's stated goal of rejecting non-threat targets.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) would be inappropriate. It was acknowledged that the primary reference, Winner, was cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during the original prosecution of the ’475 patent. However, Petitioner contended that the Examiner never used Winner as a basis for any rejection and therefore did not perform a substantive review or "formally consider" the reference for the specific teachings relied upon in the petition.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 of the ’475 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.