Bosch gets another chance to save its tire pressure monitoring patent

Tire pressure sensors are amazing little devices.  For decades drivers were required to periodically check their tire pressure in each tire to ensure proper inflation. If the tires were not properly inflated, vehicle driving dynamics could be degraded, as well as fuel economy. With the advent of vehicle stability controls, tire pressure became even more important. Now, with tire monitoring sensors, the vehicle's control system can sense the individual tire pressure sensors in real-time to maintain improve vehicle stability and notify the operator of each tire's status.
Bosch is the owner of US 6,904,796, a patent on a Remote Tire Monitoring System (RTMS) that relates to a handheld tool for activating RTMS tire sensors and communicating with a vehicle’s RTMS receiving unit. The patent was quite valuable, as Bosch had licensed the patent to numerous other automotive suppliers. However, one company decided to challenge the patent at the Patent Office through a procedure known as Inter Partes Review (IPR). Some refer to the patent office Board members who decide such challenges as the "Patent Death Squad."
Here, on appeal to the Federal Circuit (who reviews the Patent Office Board decisions) confirmed that Bosch's patent was invalid. However, the Federal Circuit determined that the Patent Office erred in not allowing Bosch to amend their patent claims to avoid the new prior art cited by the challenger.
Specifically, Bosch's patent covered the concept of a single "universal" tool that could activate a plurality of tire sensors, each of the plurality of tire sensors utilizing a different method for activating the said tire sensor. Bosch had tried to amend the claims of the patent to also specify that the tool could record the most recent method for activating signal that was utilized to successfully activate a tire sensor. Such a feature was missing from the prior art and arguably was advantageous in enabling the tool to remember the most recent method that was successful. Obviously this would be very useful for vehicles with four wheels so that once the first sensor was successfully activated, the remaining three could be done with the same method without having to test each wheel with all possibilities.
Bosch will now have a chance to save its patent back before the Board.

Popular posts from this blog

Surprising Uses for Oobleck

Image
Oobleck is a common name for a non-Newtonian fluid comprising cornstarch and water. Named after a substance humorously described in Dr. Seuss’s classic children’s story, Bartholomew and the Ooblek, the cornstarch and water concoction is frequently used in children’s science classes as a fun way to learn about fluid mechanics. You may have fond memories, yourself, of playing with oobleck as a youth. Oobleck behaves as a fluid when touched gently, but becomes hard as a solid when hit with great velocity. For example, a person could run across a swimming pool of oobleck without getting their feet wet. However, if a person stood still on the oobleck, then they would slowly sink. Because oobleck is a children’s plaything and because of its simple recipe (cornstarch and water), one may be surprised to learn that inventors have attempted to patent serious industrial uses for the material. As an example, one current patent application, US 2015/0016885 (now abandoned), is for a system of fi...
Read more

Dispensing with the Formalities: Ex Parte Quayle Actions

Image
Checking my email after work one day, I was greeted with some unfortunate news: the application I was prosecuting had received yet another Office action.   Frustrated, I couldn’t resist skimming the substance of the rejection.   After all, like any patent practitioner, I thought my arguments were pretty irrefutable.   The news only got worse… or so it appeared.   The Office action was something called an “ Ex Parte Quayle action.”   Having never received one of these actions, I started mentally preparing myself to pull out the MPEP and research some arcane rejection. To my surprise, I didn’t find myself knee-deep in case law the following day.   Ex Parte Quayle actions, while somewhat inconvenient, are far from insurmountable.   In short, an Ex Parte Quayle action or “Quayle action” is issued when an application has objections remaining as to formal matters, but is otherwise allowable.   Accordingly, the mailing of these actions close...
Read more

Adaptive Headlight IP

Image
The recent Infrastructure bill signed into law by President Biden affects many things, but one aspect that affects the automotive world is adaptive headlights.  As noted by Jalopnik puts it somewhat crudely, this means “our headlights will suck way less” (link to https://jalopnik.com/finally-our-headlights-will-suck-way-less-1848067412 ). But with this sudden change, adaptive headlights in the US may be in for a particular messy IP situation since many companies may have considered it was not necessary to protect their adaptive headlight innovations in the US because of the 50-year old rule preventing such technology. Recent patents in the field from applicants such as Lumileds and Arex indicate that smaller players and startups may be able to break into the market which is expected to explode in the next few years once the final rules are implemented.  For those in the industry that have typically avoided US patent filings in the adaptive headlamp area, they may want to r...
Read more