PTAB

IPR2019-01502

Bentley Motors Ltd v. Jaguar Land Rover Ltd

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Vehicle Control System
  • Brief Description: The ’828 patent relates to a vehicle control system that allows a driver to select a driving mode based on the driving surface (e.g., on-road, off-road). In response to the selection, the system automatically configures multiple vehicle subsystems, such as suspension, transmission, and braking, to optimize performance for the chosen terrain.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Porsche 959 Prior Art - Claims 30 and 32 are obvious over the 959 Art.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The 959 Art, comprising the ATZ Article (a four-part technical article, Exs. 1002A-D) and the Porsche 959 Driver's Manual (Ex. 1003).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the 959 Art, which describes the 1980s Porsche 959 vehicle, discloses all base elements of the challenged claims. The Porsche 959 included a driver input device (a steering column stalk) to select from four programs (Dry, Wet, Ice/snow, Traction) based on the road surface. This selection controlled a plurality of subsystems (interaxle differential, lateral lock) to configure their operation for the respective surface. Petitioner contended that the "Dry" and "Wet" modes are on-road modes, while the "Ice/snow" and "Traction" (for mud/snow) modes are off-road modes, thus meeting the limitation of having at least two off-road modes and an on-road mode.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): The ATZ article and the Driver's Manual both describe the same vehicle, were authored by Porsche, and published in the same 1986-1987 timeframe. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would have considered them an integrated description of the Porsche 959's functionality. For claims 30 and 32, which add an ordered selection of modes, Petitioner argued this is a simple matter of design choice, as the 959 Art shows a stalk switch that cycles through modes arranged vertically on the display.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSA would have found it intuitive and obvious to sequence the on-road and off-road modes as recited in the claims, as this is a simple design choice for a driver interface.

Ground 2: Obviousness over 959 Art and Ford Expedition Guide - Claims 33, 34, 41, and 42 are obvious over the 959 Art in view of the Expedition Guide.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The 959 Art (Exs. 1002A-D, 1003) and the 1997 Ford Expedition Owner's Guide (“Expedition Guide”) (Ex. 1007). An alternative ground was asserted using GB ’580.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground adds the limitation of automatically adjusting vehicle ride height based on the selected off-road mode. While the 959 Art taught a manually adjustable suspension with different height settings for on-road and off-road conditions, the Expedition Guide taught a vehicle with a "Control Trac" system where selecting an off-road mode (e.g., "4WD Low") automatically raised the air suspension to increase ground clearance.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSA would combine the automatic ride-height adjustment from the Expedition Guide with the mode-selection system of the 959 Art to enhance safety and convenience. Integrating the suspension control into the main controller would simplify the vehicle's operation by removing a separate manual knob and preventing a driver from forgetting to adjust the ride height in off-road conditions, which could lead to vehicle damage.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): By 2002, integrating previously independent electronic subsystems into a master controller was routine. Given that the Porsche 959 already had an adjustable suspension and electronic controls, a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying it to automate ride height changes based on the existing driving mode selector, as taught by the Expedition Guide.

Ground 3: Obviousness over 959 Art and Rover Patent - Claims 37 and 39 are obvious over the 959 Art in view of the ’318 patent.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The 959 Art (Exs. 1002A-D, 1003) and Rover’s Patent 6,044,318 (“the ’318 patent”).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses a powertrain subsystem with different throttle responsiveness levels for different modes. The ’318 patent taught an electronic throttle control (“ETC”) or "drive-by-wire" system with multiple selectable modes (e.g., sport, road, winter, off-road). It explicitly disclosed using different throttle progression curves, providing a less sensitive pedal with lower torque for off-road driving and a more responsive pedal for on-road driving.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSA looking to modernize the Porsche 959 would have been motivated to add ETC, which was a widely available and beneficial technology by 2002. The ’318 patent, which also discloses a selectable multi-mode system, provides a specific blueprint for integrating different throttle maps. This would improve performance, fuel consumption, and traction control by allowing the engine torque output to be tailored to each driving mode in the 959 Art.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Since ETC was widely adopted and Porsche itself had begun using it, a POSA would have had a high expectation of success in adapting this well-understood technology into the advanced but aging electronic framework of the Porsche 959.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including claims obvious over the 959 Art in view of: the 7-Series Manual (for automatic transmission profiles, claim 45), Rover’s ’614 patent (for hill descent control, claim 46), and the Hummer Article (for brake and traction control systems allowing high wheel slip on sand, claims 21, 24, and 43).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the term "off-road mode" must be construed to include driving on surfaces like snow, grass, and gravel, regardless of the underlying pavement. This construction was central to the petition's primary argument that the Porsche 959's "Ice/snow" and "Traction" modes satisfied the claim requirement for at least two off-road modes. Petitioner supported this by pointing to the patent's own specification and prosecution history, where the Patent Owner itself described modes for grass, gravel, and snow as examples of off-road modes.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 21, 24, 30, 32-34, 37, 39, 41-43, 45, and 46 of Patent RE46,828 as unpatentable.