PTAB

PGR2020-00023

LKQ Corp v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Vehicle Fender
  • Brief Description: The ’246 patent claims the ornamental design for a vehicle fender. The design is characterized by specific features including a protrusion at the upper rear, a primary crease extending from the rear edge, a secondary crease defining a lower receding plane, and a distinct rear lower portion with additional creases.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Malibu, ATS, and Phantom - The single claim is obvious over the 2014 Chevrolet Malibu in view of the 2015 Cadillac ATS and the 2018 Rolls-Royce Phantom VIII.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Malibu (a 2014 Chevrolet promotional brochure), ATS (a 2015 Cadillac promotional brochure), and Phantom (a 2018 Rolls-Royce article in Evo magazine).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued the Malibu serves as a proper primary reference because its front fender creates “basically the same” overall visual impression as the claimed design. The Malibu allegedly discloses key features, including a similar crescent-shaped front portion, an upper crease, a rear protrusion, a similar wheel arch, and a rear lower portion with an advancing plane and beveled edge. The petition contended that the primary difference is that the Malibu fender does not extend as far rearward, a minor proportional change. The ATS was introduced as a secondary reference to teach modifying this proportion, as the ATS fender has proportions virtually identical to the claimed design. After combining the teachings of the Malibu and ATS, Petitioner asserted the only remaining missing feature was the claimed design’s “second crease” which defines a “receding plane” on the lower rear portion of the fender. The Phantom was introduced to supply this final missing element, as it discloses a similar receding plane delineated by a single crease on its fender.
    • Motivation to Combine: A designer of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would combine the Malibu and ATS because both are General Motors vehicles within the same automotive family, making it natural to look between them for design cues. A POSA would have been motivated to incorporate the receding plane from the Phantom because designers frequently look to influential, ultra-premium vehicles like the Phantom for design trends. Adding this feature to a fender with a long dash-to-axle ratio (suggested by the ATS) would create a sleeker, more premium appearance, a known aesthetic goal.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involves applying known, conventional automotive design elements to achieve a predictable and desirable aesthetic effect.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Malibu, ATS, and Crown - The single claim is obvious over the 2014 Chevrolet Malibu in view of the 2015 Cadillac ATS and the sixth-generation Toyota Crown.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Malibu (a 2014 Chevrolet promotional brochure), ATS (a 2015 Cadillac promotional brochure), and Crown (a sixth-generation Toyota Crown article on a Toyota blog).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative to the Phantom for supplying the missing “second crease and receding plane.” The core argument for combining the Malibu (primary reference) and ATS (secondary reference) remained the same as in Ground 1. The Crown was then introduced as a tertiary reference, arguing that its front fender design teaches the missing receding plane feature. The Crown allegedly discloses a similar receding plane with a crease above it and a light-catcher feature below it, reinforcing the arrangement in the claimed design.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine the Malibu and ATS was the same as in Ground 1. A POSA would have been motivated to look to the Crown because its classic design embodies features common to rear-wheel-drive vehicles with longitudinally mounted engines, a layout similar to that of modern vehicles on GM’s Alpha platform (like the ATS and the commercial embodiment of the patent). A designer looking to style such a modern vehicle would naturally consult classic designs with similar layouts, like the Crown, for inspiration on how to adapt features like a receding plane.
    • Expectation of Success: The petition asserted that applying the classic design element of a receding plane from the Crown to the modified Malibu/ATS design was a straightforward adaptation of a known feature to achieve the well-understood aesthetic of a lower, longer, and sleeker vehicle profile.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous alternative obviousness challenges. These included using the 1974 Chevrolet Impala as the tertiary reference to teach the receding plane. Further grounds swapped the primary and secondary roles of the Malibu and ATS, arguing the claim is obvious over the ATS as a primary reference in view of the Malibu, and in further view of the Phantom, Crown, or Impala, but relied on the same core design modification theories.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner provided a detailed verbal construction of the claimed design to guide its prior art analysis. Key features identified as contributing to the overall visual impression include:
    • A protrusion extending upwardly and rearwardly at an upper rear portion of the fender.
    • A first crease extending from the rear edge to a crescent-shaped front portion.
    • A second crease extending from the rear edge to the wheel arch, defining a receding plane below it.
    • A rear lower portion comprising a third crease (defining an advancing plane) and a fourth crease (defining a beveled edge).

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests that post-grant review be instituted and that the single claim of the ’246 patent be found unpatentable as obvious and cancelled.