Volkswagen Group Of America Inc v. Michigan Motor Technologies LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2020-00229
• Patent #: 6,736,122
• Filed: December 20, 2019
• Petitioner(s): Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Michigan Motor Technologies LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-8

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Motor vehicle engine synchronization
• Brief Description: The ’122 patent discloses an engine management system and method for determining if fuel is injected during the proper engine cycle. The system achieves this by comparing the temporal characteristics of exhaust gas sensor outputs with stored engine operation data to verify the engine's phase.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-5 and 7 are obvious over Hosaka in view of Garrard.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hosaka (Patent 4,483,300) and Garrard (UK Patent App. Pub. No. GB 2 342 447 A).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hosaka teaches all elements of a conventional closed-loop engine control system as recited in the independent claims, including an internal combustion engine, an exhaust gas sensor, a fuel injection system, and an engine management system that oscillates the air/fuel ratio between rich and lean levels. However, Petitioner contended Hosaka does not explicitly teach determining the correct fueling stroke by comparing temporal characteristics to stored data. Garrard was asserted to supply this missing element. Garrard allegedly discloses a method to verify the engine cycle by altering the air/fuel ratio for a single cylinder, measuring the time delay until a change is detected by an oxygen sensor, and comparing that measured delay to an expected time delay stored in the engine management system.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine Hosaka and Garrard to improve the performance and emissions of Hosaka’s standard engine control system. Garrard’s method provides a cost-effective way to synchronize the engine and verify the correct fueling stroke without requiring a dedicated camshaft sensor. Petitioner noted that Garrard itself suggests its method can be easily implemented in existing microprocessor-based systems like Hosaka's.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have had a high expectation of success. The combination involves integrating a known stroke-verification method (Garrard) into a conventional engine control system (Hosaka) to achieve the predictable result of improved engine synchronization, leading to better fuel economy and lower emissions.

Ground 2: Claims 5-8 are obvious over Hosaka, Garrard, and Heim.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hosaka (Patent 4,483,300), Garrard (UK Patent App. Pub. No. GB 2 342 447 A), and Heim (WO 90/02874).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the combination of Hosaka and Garrard by adding Heim to address the limitations of dependent claims 5-8, which relate to signal processing and data management. Petitioner argued Heim teaches managing oxygen sensor signals to improve system reliability. Specifically, Heim discloses averaging sensor data over a plurality of oscillations (mapping to claim 5), ignoring sensor data that falls outside a pre-determined range to filter out spurious signals (mapping to claim 6), and storing data for different engine operating conditions for future reference (mapping to claims 7 and 8).
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would be motivated to incorporate Heim’s signal management techniques into the Hosaka/Garrard system to enhance its robustness. By filtering noise and accounting for erroneous sensor signals, the system would become more reliable and less prone to making incorrect control decisions. This would predictably result in improved engine performance and reduced emissions, which are well-known goals in the art.
  • Expectation of Success: Integrating Heim’s known signal processing methods to reduce noise and errors in the combined Hosaka/Garrard system would have been a straightforward application of known techniques to a known system. A POSA would have reasonably expected this combination to yield a more stable and efficient engine control system.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the PTAB should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under § 325(d). Although the European counterpart to Garrard was cited in an Information Disclosure Statement during the prosecution of the ’122 patent, Petitioner contended the Examiner did not substantively consider or analyze it. This assertion was supported by the fact that the application was allowed without any rejections based on prior art. Petitioner argued that the Examiner, therefore, never evaluated the specific teachings of Garrard that form the basis of the invalidity grounds, making the petition's arguments and evidence distinct from what was before the Office during prosecution.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-8 of Patent 6,736,122 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.