Obviousness

Analysis of Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis examines whether the invention claimed in U.S. Patent 8,315,769 ('769 patent) would have been obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was made. An invention is considered obvious if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a PHOSITA. This analysis relies on the prior art references detailed in the preceding section.

A PHOSITA in this technical field would likely be an automotive engineer or a control systems engineer with a bachelor's degree in mechanical or electrical engineering and several years of experience in vehicle dynamics, sensor integration, and active suspension control systems.

The independent claims (1, 9, and 21) of the '769 patent can be rendered obvious by combining the teachings of the prior art, most notably by combining U.S. Patent No. 7,047,120 B2 (Breed) with either U.S. Patent No. 6,470,265 B1 (Hac '265) or U.S. Patent No. 6,529,810 B2 (Naito).

---

Primary Combination: Breed '120 and Hac '265

A strong case for obviousness exists by combining the teachings of Breed '120 and Hac '265.

• Claim Elements Taught by the Combination:

  • Element (a): an accelerometer-gyroscope for sensing an absolute lateral acceleration (from claims 1 and 9) / sensing a lateral acceleration (from claim 21):
    Breed '120 explicitly teaches this element. It discloses an inertial measurement unit comprising both accelerometers and gyroscopes for the precise purpose of determining the vehicle's orientation relative to gravity. This allows the system to calculate the "true" or "absolute" acceleration by subtracting gravitational components, which is the exact concept claimed in the '769 patent.

  • Elements (b) and (c): a suspension selector and a plurality of controllers for individually controlling one or more suspension systems (from claims 1 and 9) / sending a signal to a plurality of control devices and adjusting a suspension characteristic (from claim 21):
    Hac '265 clearly discloses these elements. It describes a comprehensive apparatus for vehicle suspension control that uses sensor inputs (including a lateral accelerometer) to actively adjust individual suspension components. The control logic within Hac '265 performs the function of the claimed "suspension selector" and "plurality of controllers" by receiving sensor data and directing signals to specific suspension actuators at different wheels of the vehicle.

• Motivation to Combine:
  A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of these two patents for a clear and predictable purpose: to improve the performance of an existing active suspension system.

  The active suspension control system described in Hac '265 relies on accurate sensor data to function effectively. However, a simple lateral accelerometer, as used in Hac, is susceptible to errors on banked curves or inclines where gravity is misread as lateral force. This limitation was well-understood in the field of vehicle dynamics.

  Breed '120 provides a direct solution to this known problem by teaching a method to obtain a more accurate, gravity-corrected ("absolute") lateral acceleration measurement. A PHOSITA tasked with improving the robustness and accuracy of the Hac '265 system would have found it obvious to replace the standard lateral accelerometer with the more advanced inertial measurement unit taught by Breed '120. This is not an inventive leap, but rather the application of a known, improved component (Breed's sensor) into an existing system (Hac's controller) to achieve a predictable improvement in performance. The combination would yield a more reliable suspension control system, which is a recognized goal in the art.

Secondary Combination: Breed '120 and Naito '810

A similar argument for obviousness can be made by combining Breed '120 with Naito '810.

• Claim Elements Taught by the Combination:

  • Sensing absolute lateral acceleration: As before, this is taught by Breed '120.
  • Control and Adjustment of Suspension: Naito '810 discloses a suspension control apparatus that uses lateral acceleration data to adjust suspension actuators at individual wheels. Its control unit serves the same function as the "suspension selector" and "controllers" in the '769 patent claims, thereby teaching the control feedback loop.

• Motivation to Combine:
  The motivation is identical to the first combination. Naito '810's system, which seeks to distinguish between different road conditions and turning scenarios, would directly benefit from a more accurate lateral acceleration input. A PHOSITA would be motivated to incorporate the absolute sensor from Breed '120 into the Naito '810 system to enhance its ability to make correct adjustments, especially on banked or uneven road surfaces. The result—a more precise suspension adjustment—is the expected outcome of using a superior sensor.

---

Conclusion on Obviousness

The independent claims of U.S. Patent 8,315,769 appear obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The core elements of the claimed invention were present in the prior art. Specifically, the concept of using an accelerometer-gyroscope pair to calculate absolute acceleration was taught by Breed '120, and the use of control systems to adjust individual suspension components based on lateral acceleration was well-established by references like Hac '265 and Naito '810.

A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to create a more robust and accurate active suspension system. Such a combination represents a predictable substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result, which falls squarely within the scope of an obviousness rejection. This conclusion is consistent with the finding of "substantial new questions of patentability" in the ex parte reexamination initiated in March 2026.