PTAB

IPR2020-00065

LKQ Corp v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Hood Panel of Car
  • Brief Description: The ’120 patent claims the ornamental design for a vehicle hood panel. The design features include a center peak, a sloped U-shaped beveled edge, triangular flanges, a raised middle portion, sloping planes, accent bevels, and an underside structural plate.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Prior Art Traverse - The single claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by the Prior Art Traverse.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Prior Art Traverse (depictions of the 2014 and 2015 Chevrolet Traverse from brochures, YouTube videos, and photographs).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the ornamental design of the Prior Art Traverse is substantially the same as, if not identical to, the claimed design of the ’120 patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer. To support this, Petitioner provided side-by-side visual comparisons showing that the overall visual impression of the two designs is nearly identical. The argument detailed how specific ornamental features claimed in the ’120 patent—including the center peak, U-shaped beveled edge, triangular flanges, raised middle portion, and sloping planes—are all present in the Prior Art Traverse with the same appearance. Petitioner also contended that even if the underside of the hood were considered ornamental, the Prior Art Traverse conveys the same visual impression, and any distinctions are de minimis or relate to non-ornamental functional aspects.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Traverse in view of Sonic - The single claim is obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over the Prior Art Traverse in view of the Prior Art Sonic.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Prior Art Traverse (primary reference, as described in Ground 1) and Prior Art Sonic (secondary reference, depictions of the 2012 and 2013 Chevrolet Sonic from brochures and YouTube videos).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that to the extent any minor differences in proportion or shaping exist that preclude a finding of anticipation, the claimed design is obvious. The Prior Art Traverse was presented as a proper primary reference under the design patent obviousness test because its design characteristics are "basically the same" as the claimed design. Any minor potential differences—such as the degree of taper on the U-shaped edge or the width and angle of the triangular flanges—are rendered obvious by the Prior Art Sonic.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a designer of ordinary skill would combine the references for several reasons. First, it would be a natural way to update the design of an older model (the Sonic) with the then-current brand design language exemplified by the newer Traverse. Second, applying the design themes of the Traverse to other Chevrolet vehicles would promote brand coherence across the product line. A designer adapting the Traverse hood to fit the Sonic's chassis would be motivated to adjust the proportions of the U-shaped edge and triangular flanges to align with the Sonic's A-pillars and headlights, resulting in a design identical to that of the ’120 patent.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that such modifications would be logical, trivial adjustments for an ordinary designer, implying a high expectation of success in achieving a predictable and aesthetically consistent result.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the scope of the design claim should be limited to its ornamental aspects, excluding features that are purely functional or hidden from view during normal use. Specifically, Petitioner contended that the structural plate on the underside of the hood panel, including its various sockets, holes, and recesses, serves purely functional purposes. It was further argued that this underside portion is concealed by an opaque insulating pad during a vehicle's normal operation and, therefore, its appearance is not a matter of concern to an ordinary purchaser. Consequently, Petitioner asserted that these non-ornamental, functional, and hidden features should be excluded from the scope of the claimed design when assessing novelty and non-obviousness.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of the single claim of Patent D813,120 as unpatentable.