Applied Concepts Inc v. Kustom Signals Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-00829
• Patent #: 11,194,039
• Filed: April 22, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Applied Concepts Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-15

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Traffic Radar System with Patrol Vehicle Speed Detection
• Brief Description: The ’039 patent discloses a traffic radar system for a patrol vehicle that includes front and rear radar transceivers, a speed determining element (e.g., a speedometer), and a processing element. The system analyzes digitized radar signals using techniques like a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) to identify targets, determine their speed relative to the patrol vehicle, and calculate their absolute speed based on the patrol vehicle's own measured speed.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 6-11, 14, and 15 are obvious over Aker, Aker ’724, and Thomas.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Aker (Application # 2004/0257268), Aker ’724 (Patent 5,691,724), and Thomas (United Kingdom Patent Pub. No. 2,334,700).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Aker, which incorporates Aker ’724 by reference, discloses a traffic radar system with nearly all claimed features. Aker taught a system with front and rear radar antennas, a digital signal processor (DSP) that performs an FFT to convert time-domain radar signals into frequency bins, and the use of a speedometer input to determine patrol vehicle speed. Aker also taught filtering out the patrol vehicle's speed signature by creating a "window" around its corresponding frequency bin and identifying target speeds outside that window. The primary missing element, a speed determining element that uses a global navigation satellite system (GNSS), was supplied by Thomas, which taught a controller that uses GPS signals to calculate and output a vehicle's current speed.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Thomas with the Aker system to improve its robustness and accuracy. Aker disclosed using a generic speedometer input, and Thomas provided a known, superior alternative (GPS-based speed detection) that avoids the mechanical complexities and potential inaccuracies of traditional speedometers. Thomas explicitly taught that its GPS system could obviate the need for a separate speed sensor.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved substituting one known type of speed sensor (a generic speedometer as in Aker) with another known type (a GPS-based speedometer as in Thomas) to provide a speed signal to a system designed to receive one.

Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 6-11, 14, and 15 are obvious over Shelton, Henderson, and Thomas.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Shelton (Patent 6,023,236), Henderson (Patent 5,528,246), and Thomas (United Kingdom Patent Pub. No. 2,334,700).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Shelton taught a DSP-based traffic radar that uses pulses from a vehicle's electronic speedometer to create a search "window" to locate the patrol vehicle's radar return signal. To add the claimed front and rear transceivers, Petitioner looked to Henderson, which Shelton referenced as disclosing a similar DSP radar. Henderson taught a system with both front and rear antennas and a control button to select between them. The combination of Shelton and Henderson thus taught a dual-antenna system. As in Ground 1, Thomas was used to supply the teaching of a GPS-based speed determining element to replace the electronic speedometer input disclosed in Shelton.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Henderson with Shelton to expand the capabilities of Shelton's radar unit. Adding a rear antenna as taught by Henderson would allow the system to detect targets in both the front and rear of the patrol vehicle, a predictable improvement. A POSITA would further incorporate Thomas to replace Shelton's speedometer input with a more reliable GPS-based speed signal for the same reasons articulated in Ground 1.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because the combination involved adding a known feature (a rear antenna from Henderson) to a similar system (Shelton) and replacing a conventional component (speedometer) with a known, improved alternative (GPS sensor from Thomas).

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges (Grounds 1B and 2B) against claims 3-5 and 11-13. These grounds added Carmichael (Application # 2005/0146458) to the combinations of Grounds 1 and 2, respectively. Carmichael was cited for its teaching of a radar device that automatically switches between moving and stationary modes based on vehicle speed information, which Petitioner argued would have been a desirable and obvious feature to add for ease of operation.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate for several reasons.
  • Fintiv: Denial under §314(a) was argued to be unwarranted because Petitioner filed a Sotera stipulation, agreeing not to pursue the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in this IPR in the parallel district court litigation.
  • General Plastic: Petitioner contended these factors favor institution because this is the first IPR petition filed against the ’039 patent and is not a "follow-on" petition.
  • Advanced Bionics: Denial under §325(d) was argued to be improper because the prior art references relied upon in the petition (Aker, Aker ’724, Thomas, Shelton, Henderson, and Carmichael) are new, non-cumulative references that were not cited or considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution of the ’039 patent.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-15 of the ’039 patent as unpatentable.