US 10760926

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent, including any litigation or CAFC docket activity.

Let me check for any litigation or PTAB/CAFC activity involving this specific patent.

US Patent 10,760,926 — Analyst Summary

Search scope note (important): I do not have authenticated access to USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR or to PACER/CAFC docket systems. My "search" was a live web search across publicly indexed patent and litigation sources (Google Patents, Justia Patents, Unified Patents portal, uspto.report, idiyas, Free Law Project/CourtListener, and docket aggregators). I found no PTAB/IPR, ITC, district-court, or Federal Circuit 2026 docket activity naming U.S. Patent 10,760,926. I cannot rule out unindexed or very recent filings. I also found no CAFC 2026 appeal involving this patent; the CAFC audio transcript that surfaced involved unrelated Volkswagen appeals over lighting patents (the "'503"/"'335" decisions, Carlson/Harbors art), not this patent.

---

Bibliographic data

Data discrepancies to flag: The Unified Patents portal lists priority date 2015-05-06, application date 2016-01-24, and grant date 2020-08-31 — one day earlier in each case, consistent with UTC-vs-local timezone normalization. The authoritative full text (Google Patents) and the idiyas record give 2015-05-07 / 2016-01-25 / 2020-09-01, which I treat as controlling. A third-party listing (idiyas) omits inventor Hendrik-Jörn Günther; the patent front page lists seven inventors, which I treat as authoritative.

---

Abstract (verbatim)

"A method for plausibility checking of measured values of a mobile device wherein sensor equipment of the mobile device generates at least one measured value, at least two pieces of information regarding the at least one measured value are received from the mobile device via a communication service, and the at least one measured value is checked for plausibility based on the at least two items of information."

---

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

There are four independent claims: 1, 11, 12, and 17. Claims 2–10 depend from claim 1; claims 13–16 depend from claim 11.

Claim 1 — Method (the core claim). A mobile device (e.g., a V2X-equipped "ego" vehicle) generates a measured value from its own sensor system, receives at least two pieces of external information about that same measured quantity over a communication service (e.g., V2X/vehicle-to-X or mobile radio), and checks its own measured value's plausibility against that external information. The claim has two distinctive limitations:

• Relevance filter: only information from other mobile devices/stationary infrastructure units that have been classified as relevant is used; and
• Group/spatial disambiguation: if multiple groups of measurement variables are identified (corresponding to groups of the other relevant devices/vehicles), the system investigates the spatial situation of those devices and uses only the measurement variables from the group whose spatial situation matches the ego device's — i.e., resolve disagreement by matching location/context (lane, road segment, etc.) rather than blindly averaging.

Claim 11 — Control device for a transportation vehicle. A control device (a vehicle computing unit, which may also sit outside the vehicle) configured to carry out the same method as claim 1, including the same relevance-filter and spatial-group-matching limitations. Note the claim language shifts from "vehicle" to "transportation vehicle" and from "the mobile device" to "the relevant mobile devices and/or stationary vehicles" — a wording quirk worth noting if claim scope is at issue.

Claim 12 — Transportation vehicle. A vehicle that includes a sensor system for generating at least one measured value and the control device of claim 11. This is a straightforward apparatus/system claim tied to the claim-11 device.

Claim 17 — Mobile device. A mobile device configured to carry out the claim-1 method (with the same relevance-filter and spatial-group limitations), expressly defined as being a mobile radio device, a navigation device, a mobile computer, and/or a vehicle. This claim broadens the covered hardware beyond vehicles.

Representative dependent claims (context): claim 2 (communicating with other mobile devices, infrastructure units, and/or a manufacturer's backend computer unit); claim 3 (plausible if the difference falls within predefined limits); claim 4 (the two items of information relate to the same measurement variable, and/or related variables are derived from them — e.g., acceleration derived from speed); claim 5 (time stamps); claim 6 (stipulated check frequency); claim 7 (synchronized transmission, e.g., GNSS-based); claim 8 (use only information meeting predetermined criteria); claim 9 (communication service = mobile radio, V2V, and/or V2I); claim 10 (continue operation if plausible; error message and/or intervention if not).

---

What the patent actually adds (per the specification)

The disclosed concept is that an ego vehicle uses local-environment V2X information not only for safety/assistance functions but also to validate its own sensor data — a self-diagnostic cross-check against peer/infrastructure data (CAM/BSM status messages, DENM event messages, ITS roadside station data, or backend-processed "V2X swarm data"). The specification describes a six-operation workflow (reference numerals 100–600): (100) obtain V2X information; (200) relevance filtering by a per-measurement-variable "relevance region"; (300) stipulate check frequency; (400) stipulate synchronized measurement intervals; (500) compare ego data to V2X data; (600) analyze distributions/outliers/vehicle groups and repeat the non-plausible finding before escalating (error memory, emergency strategy, HMI warning).

Prosecution/citation context (for validity awareness): the examiner-cited prior art includes DE 10 2006 043317 A1 (Bosch, sensor plausibility via another sensor), DE 10 2010 002 092 A1 (Continental, V2X data preprocessing), DE 10 2011 077 998 A1 (Continental, information validation), and CN 101650873 A / US 8,169,338 B2 (GM, inter-vehicle communication diagnosis). No IPR or reexamination of this patent was found.

---

Uncertainty statement

• I could not confirm any 2026 CAFC docket, appeal, PTAB proceeding, or district-court case specifically naming US 10,760,926. Absence of a result in my search is not proof of absence; the specific CAFC 2026 docket query you requested cannot be authoritatively answered with the tools available to me.
• Claim text and bibliographic data above are drawn from the Google Patents full text for US10760926B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10760926B2/en) and the Unified Patents portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-10760926-B2), with secondary corroboration from Justia (https://patents.justia.com/patent/10760926) and idiyas (https://idiyas.com/patent/badge/10760926). Where these differ on dates, I have flagged the discrepancy rather than silently normalizing it and have treated the full patent text as controlling, per your instruction.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10760926 across patent litigation sources.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases and the Unified Patents portal specifically.

Let me run more targeted searches on litigation-specific databases.

Findings: Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 10,760,926

No litigation was found involving U.S. Patent No. 10,760,926 (US 10,760,926 B2).

Searches performed

I ran multiple searches targeting patent-litigation databases and general litigation coverage:

• The Unified Patents patent page for US-10760926-B2 (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-10760926-B2) — the record returned patent bibliographic/valuation data only; no litigation entries were listed for this patent.
• Queries combining the exact number with litigation terms ("10,760,926" + infringement complaint/lawsuit/docket), and site-restricted queries for CourtListener and Justia Dockets.
• Queries pairing the patent owner (Volkswagen AG / Volkswagen Group of America) with litigation terms.

What the searches did return (NOT this patent)

The results surfaced Volkswagen-related patent litigation involving other patents. These are not assertions of US 10,760,926 and should not be attributed to it:

• VDPP, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., No. 2024-2226 (Fed. Cir.) — patent-marking/§ 287 case involving VDPP's 3D-glasses patent; unrelated patent number.
• Sol IP, LLC v. Volkswagen AG, No. 2:26-cv-00766 (E.D. Tex.) — asserts U.S. 9,900,067 and 10,090,894.
• Perrone Robotics Innovations, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., No. 1:2025cv02183 (E.D. Va.).
• Older Volkswagen matters such as West View Research v. Audi/VW (S.D. Cal.) and the Paice IPRs — all unrelated to this patent.

Caveats and limitations (stated explicitly)

• I could not directly confirm a negative from the Unified Patents litigation caselist page you referenced; my tool access returned the Unified Patents patent detail page, which showed no litigation. I was also unable to complete site-restricted lookups on CourtListener and Justia/PACER before hitting my search limit, so my conclusion rests on the aggregated searches above rather than an exhaustive docket-by-docket sweep.
• I found no CAFC appeal, no PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR), and no district-court complaint identifying U.S. 10,760,926 as an asserted patent.
• This patent is owned by Volkswagen AG (priority date 2015-05-07; granted 2020-09-01; classified in G01C/G08G/H04W vehicle-to-X space). It is a fairly recent, vehicle-to-everything (V2X) plausibility-checking patent, and no third party appears to have asserted it in the records I could retrieve.

Recommended verification steps

If you need a court-admissible negative, I suggest checking directly (these were not fully reachable in this session):

• Unified Patents Litigation Caselist: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist
• Docket Alarm / Docket Navigator patent case search by patent number
• CourtListener RECAP and PACER full-text docket search
• USPTO PTAB (IPR/PGR) and USPTO Assignment records for any ownership transfers that could signal a monetization campaign.

Bottom line: Based on the available search results, there is no known litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,760,926. I could not verify this with complete confidence, so treat the above as "none found" rather than an absolute negative pending a direct docket-database confirmation.

I'll verify the canonical "no proceedings" signal with targeted searches before finalizing.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding for US 10,760,926 as of the most recent ingest, and my independent searches surfaced no petition, institution decision, FWD, termination, or Federal Circuit appeal tied to this patent number — so the breakdown is zero active, zero invalidated, zero sustained, zero settled, zero institution-denied. (Breakdown-by-status is therefore not meaningfully computable: there is no status to report.) The defensive posture this gives a defendant is not "hardened" — it is untested. Every one of claims 1–17 stands exactly as it issued on 2020-09-01, and no challenger has yet put the patent's validity to the Board.

I flag one caveat plainly: absence of ODP records is strong but not conclusive evidence of absence of a filing. A petition filed very recently (e.g., within the last few weeks) may not yet be indexed, and a petition filed but not yet accorded a filing date would not appear in ODP at all. Nothing in my searches suggested such a filing; I found no docket artifact, no PTAB E2E document, and no third-party tracker entry (including Unified Patents' own patent page for US-10760926-B2, which records no challenge activity) indicating a pending petition.

---

No proceedings to report

There is no proceeding number to list, and I will not manufacture one. For completeness, the searches I ran and what they did and did not return:

The 15 references cited on the face of the patent — including DE 10 2006 043317 A1 (Bosch), DE 10 2007 009335 A1 (Continental), WO 2009/158211 A2 (Microsoft), DE 10 2010 002092 A1 (Continental, "Data preprocessing for vehicle-to-X communication"), DE 10 2011 077998 A1 (Continental, "Method and system for information validation"), and US 8,169,338 B2 (GM, "Inter-vehicle communication feature awareness and diagnosis system") — reflect examiner-cited art, not petitioner-cited art. That distinction matters for strategy (see § 325(d) below).

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED. No claim of US 10,760,926 has been canceled, confirmed, or even challenged at the PTAB. The claim set as granted (17 claims) comprises independent claim 1 (method for plausibility checking using at least two received items of information), independent claim 11 (control device for a "transportation vehicle" carrying out that method), claim 12 (a transportation vehicle having a sensor system and the claim 11 control device), and independent claim 17 (mobile device — mobile radio device, navigation device, mobile computer, and/or vehicle — carrying out the method). Claims 2–10 depend from claim 1; claims 13–16 depend from claim 11. Note for assertion-mapping purposes that claims 1, 11, and 17 each carry the two narrowing limitations that came out of prosecution: (a) "only information from other mobile devices and/or stationary infrastructure units is used in response to the other mobile devices and/or stationary infrastructure units are classified as relevant," and (b) the group-analysis limitation requiring, when multiple groups of measurement variables are identified, investigation of spatial situation and use of only the spatially corresponding group's measurement variables. Those are the natural focal points for any invalidity or non-infringement theory.

Estoppel landscape: clean slate. Because no IPR/PGR was ever instituted, § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to no petitioner and no privy. A defendant being asserted against today is free to raise any prior-art ground — § 102, § 103, or § 112 — in district court or in a fresh IPR petition, without inheriting anyone else's estoppel. Conversely, there is no FWD to point to, no Board claim construction to borrow, and no canceled claim to moot a demand letter. If you receive a demand letter citing claim 1 (or any other claim), you cannot respond that the claim is already dead — it is not.

Pattern signals and practical risk. The patent owner (Volkswagen AG) is a sophisticated, well-resourced player who has itself been an aggressive PTAB petitioner against others — Volkswagen Group of America petitions appear in multiple proceedings (e.g., IPR2020-00444/-00445, IPR2020-00894, and the West View Research and Arigna families) — yet its own patent here has never been tested. That asymmetry suggests the patent has simply not been asserted widely enough to attract a challenge, not that it is invulnerable; VW's continuation activity in the same space (DE 10 2021 127 078 A1 / US 2024/0409107 A1, directed to plausibility checking of swarm-data-derived trajectories) shows the company still treats this subject matter as valuable. There is no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) in the chain. One important caution if you do file: the prior art most likely to be useful here overlaps heavily with the examiner-cited references listed above, which creates real § 325(d) and Advanced Bionics discretionary-denial exposure unless you can show the Examiner materially erred or the art is materially new. Budget for a strong § 325(d) narrative or a materially distinct reference set. Also, if litigation is filed, § 315(b) gives you one year from service of the complaint to petition — and the Fintiv-era discretionary framework (and the current Director's guidance discouraging serial and late petitions) means a first petition should be filed early and on the strongest grounds, not reserved.

---

Recommended next steps

• No PTAB activity exists on US 10,760,926. State this to the file as your validity posture: the patent's 17 claims are all live and all untested. Do not represent to a court or to the patent owner that any claim has been invalidated — it has not.
• If you are a defendant and are weighing an IPR: the statutory window is one year from service of the complaint (§ 315(b)). Given the examiner-cited art overlap, do a § 325(d)/Advanced Bionics diligence pass before drafting, and consider whether the strongest ground is a materially new reference (e.g., a V2X/ITS standard or an ETSI/SAE CAM/BSM implementation document, or a § 112 written-description/eligibility theory aimed at the "classified as relevant" and "spatial situation" limitations) rather than a re-run of the Bosch/Continental/Microsoft/GM art of record.
• If you are the patent owner: the absence of PTAB history is an asset. It means no claim has been canceled, no prosecution disclaimer has been locked in by a Board construction, and any future challenge faces § 315(b) timing and § 325(d) discretionary hurdles. Preserve that by keeping the file history and priority chain (PCT/EP2016/051466, filed 2016-01-25; DE 10 2015 208 507.4, 2015-05-07; DE 10 2015 219 933.9, 2015-10-14) cleanly documented for any priority challenge.
• Monitor, don't assume. Because ODP ingest lags, re-check PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/, PATENTSCOPE-style E2E docket) and PatentCenter (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/15571871) before filing anything, particularly if the patent is newly asserted in litigation — a competing defendant may have filed first.

Sources: Google Patents full text of US 10,760,926 B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10760926B2](/patent/US10760926B2)/en); Unified Patents patent profile for US-10760926-B2 (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-10760926-B2) — no challenge activity recorded; USPTO PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/) — no proceeding indexed under this patent.

Confidence note: I have high confidence in the "zero AIA proceedings" conclusion for anything older than the most recent ODP ingest cycle. I have low visibility into filings made in the last few weeks, since those may not yet be indexed anywhere I can search. If your deadline is sensitive to a recently filed petition, verify directly against PTAB E2E rather than relying on this summary.

I'll verify the assignment record using USPTO Assignment Center and cross-reference sources before building the timeline.

Let me check the family members and any post-issuance reassignment records.

Let me try to retrieve the recorded assignment document itself and check for any later transfers.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 10,760,926 B2

Scope and access note. I searched the Google Patents legal-events record (authoritative full text supplied in this analysis), the Unified Patents patent-detail page, and attempted targeted lookups against the USPTO assignment index (legacy-assignments.uspto.gov document URLs and assignmentcenter.uspto.gov). I hit my tool-call limit mid-verification. Critically, I was not able to open the Assignment Center abstract-of-title record or the underlying assignment PDF for Reel 044244/0409, so I could not retrieve the recorded correspondent of record (attorney/agent who filed the recording). That field is therefore reported below as not retrieved, not as absent — do not read a blank as "no correspondent."

---

Inventors

Seven inventors are named on the face of the patent (Google Patents front page; the idiyas third-party listing omits Günther — the seven-name face listing controls):

Caveat (do not over-read): the assignment instrument (Reel 044244/0409) shows the inventors as assignors to Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, and their recorded addresses on VW assignments are typically in the Wolfsburg/Braunschweig area. That is consistent with — but not, on the record I retrieved, direct proof of — salaried employment by VW at the 2015-05-07 priority date. I flag this rather than state it as established.

Unusual-pattern check — no red flag. All seven inventors jointly assigned to the original assignee on 2017-11-02 through 2017-11-24 (execution dates per the recorded instrument), i.e. roughly 2.5 years after the German priority filing and ~10 months after the U.S. national-phase entry date. There is no evidence of inventors assigning to a party other than the employer, and no evidence of any inventor departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing. The single-employer, all-inventors-on-one-instrument pattern is the opposite of the fractured-ownership / departing-inventor pattern that precedes a portfolio fire-sale.

---

Original assignee

Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (Volkswagen AG), Berliner Ring 2, 38440 Wolfsburg, Germany — named as both original and current assignee.

• Primary line of business: automotive OEM (the ultimate parent of the Volkswagen Group: VW, Audi, Porsche, Škoda, SEAT, CUPRA, Bentley, Lamborghini, Ducati, VW Commercial Vehicles, TRATON/Scania/MAN interests).
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? The patent is a V2X/vehicle-to-X plausibility-checking method — it is implemented in vehicle electronics and telematics/V2X stacks rather than sold as a standalone article. VW is a high-volume producer of connected vehicles with in-house V2X development, and the specification is written as an OEM-internal workflow (ego vehicle, backend of the manufacturer, "cooperative ACC," "XFCD measurement order"). The continuing corporate interest is visible in the citation trail: a later family member/continuation-adjacent filing, DE 10 2021 127 078 A1 (Cariad SE — Volkswagen Group's software subsidiary**)** and US 2024/0409107 A1 / WO 2023/066864 A1 (Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft) both cite this patent on trajectory-plausibility-from-swarm-data subject matter. That is strong circumstantial evidence VW Group still builds on the claimed concept.
• Current status: operating; not in bankruptcy; no assignment of this patent away from VW. The patent is Active, with the 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2024-02-20 (large entity), adjusted expiration 2036-12-22.

---

Assignment timeline

The record contains exactly one recorded assignment for US 10,760,926 (and for application 15/571,871). There are no post-issuance assignments, no security agreements, no mergers, no changes of name, and no releases naming this patent.

• Executed 2017-11-02 to 2017-11-24 / recorded 2017-11-29 — Reel 044244/0409
  • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST")
  • Assignor: Monique Engel; Bernd Rech; Stefan Gläser; Sandra Kleinau; Teodor Buburuzan; Hendrik-Jörn Günther; Bernd Lehmann (joint inventors)
  • Assignee: Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, Germany
  • Correspondent: not retrieved — the Assignment Center abstract-of-title page and the reel-044244/0409 instrument could not be opened within this session's search budget. I will not guess a name or firm.
  • Context: Inventor-to-employer assignment at U.S. national-phase entry (application 15/571,871, a 35 U.S.C. § 371 national stage of PCT/EP2016/051466). Standard, non-adversarial, non-monetizing transfer of title.

Adjacent (non-assignment) legal events in the same window, for completeness — these are NOT conveyances:

• 2017-11-06 — FEPP (fee payment procedure): entity status set to undiscounted / large entity. Confirms VW is the fee-paying owner of record; consistent with a large operating entity, not a shell.
• 2018-04-23 — STPP: docketed / ready for examination.
• 2020-09-01 — grant; 2024-02-20 — 4th-year maintenance fee paid (large entity).

Family-level ownership status (context, not U.S. assignments): WO 2016/177481 A1 — not active/ceased; EP 3 292 547 A1 — not active/ceased; DE 10 2015 219 933 A1 — not active/ceased; CN 107810527 A — active/pending. The U.S. member is the only live member of practical consequence in the major jurisdictions, and it remains with VW.

Because the Assignment Center shows no record other than the original inventor assignment, the "shell-entity / cascade / asserter" sections of this template have almost nothing to bite on. Per the brief, that is itself the finding: the original assignee still owns the patent.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10760926
    2015 : German priority filed by VW inventors
    2016 : PCT and US national phase filed
    2017 : Inventors assign to Volkswagen AG
    2018 : US pre-grant publication
    2020 : Patent issued to Volkswagen AG
    2024 : 4th year maintenance fee paid

(Deliberately sparse — the record supports only one ownership transfer. Event text kept short and punctuation-free per the parseability constraint.)

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

No fabrication note: no reel/frame, correspondent, or transfer is asserted here that is not supported by the Google Patents legal-events text for US10760926B2 and the Unified Patents detail page. The absence of post-issuance assignments is a positive finding from the record, not an inference.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment).

The ownership record for US 10,760,926 contains a single conveyance — the inventor-to-employer assignment recorded 2017-11-29 at Reel 044244/0409 (executed 2017-11-02 to 2017-11-24), transferring title from the seven named inventors to Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft — and no subsequent assignments of any kind. That lone link cannot support an NPE-pattern finding in either direction: there is no shell transfer, no known asserter, no cascade, no pre-litigation transfer, no bankruptcy sale, and no defensive-aggregator terminus, and no infringement litigation naming the patent has been identified. On the observable evidence, the chain is a clean, uninterrupted operating-OEM ownership record, but because no second assignment exists to analyze — and because I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for the one recorded instrument — the template's NPE rubric resolves to Insufficient data, not to a substantive NPE call.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center (search by patent 10,760,926 or application 15/571,871): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Legacy USPTO assignment search: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events (source of the 2017-11-29 Reel 044244/0409 entry): https://patents.google.com/patent/US10760926B2/en
• Unified Patents detail page (assignee = Volkswagen AG): https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-10760926-B2

Open item for both this section and the bibliographic section: the Unified Patents page lists priority 2015-05-06, application 2016-01-24, grant 2020-08-31, expiration 2036-12-21 — each exactly one day earlier than the Google Patents values (2015-05-07 / 2016-01-25 / 2020-09-01 / 2036-12-22). This is consistent with UTC-vs-local date normalization and does not affect the ownership chain, which has only one date-bearing event (2017-11-29, agreed across sources).

I'll research the prior art citations for US 10,760,926, verifying against USPTO and other authoritative sources.

Let me gather details on the key cited references.

I've reached my search limit, so I'll now synthesize the prior-art analysis using the authoritative citation list embedded in the patent's own front page (via Google Patents full text) plus the reference details returned by my searches.

---

Prior-Art Analysis — US 10,760,926 B2

Sourcing note

The citation list below is drawn from the patent's own front page as reproduced in the Google Patents full text you supplied ("Patent Citations (17)" and "Citations (15)" sections of https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10760926B2](/patent/US10760926B2)/en). I did not obtain a direct USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR "References Cited" export; the Google Patents citation table is my primary source, with secondary detail from Justia (https://patents.justia.com/patent/[10760926](/patent/10760926)), the Unified Patents portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-10760926-B2), and each cited document's own Google Patents page. Where the citation table and a reference's own page disagree on dates I say so.

Critical framing for the § 102 question. Claim 1 (and its mirror independent claims 11 and 17) has two distinctive structural limitations that must appear in a single reference for a clean § 102 anticipation:

1. Relevance classification — "only information from other mobile devices and/or stationary infrastructure units is used … classified as relevant"; and
2. Spatial group-matching — where "a plurality of groups of measurement variables" are identified, "investigat[e] the spatial situation" of the other devices and "us[e] only measurement variables of that group … whose spatial situation corresponds to the mobile device."

Most cited art shows the general idea of cross-checking one's own sensor data against peer/infrastructure data (which reads on the preamble + "at least two items of information" of claim 1), but no single cited reference that I can verify discloses both the relevance classification and the spatial-group-selection limitations together. That means the realistic challenge posture is § 103 obviousness over combinations, not clean § 102 anticipation, and I flag that explicitly per reference below rather than overclaiming.

---

A. The most relevant references (core-concept art)

A1. DE 10 2006 043 317 A1 — Robert Bosch GmbH

• Full citation: DE 10 2006 043 317 A1, Robert Bosch GmbH, "Sensor functionality examination method for e.g. car…" — priority 2006-09-15; published 2008-03-27 (Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102006043317A1/en).
• Description: A first vehicle determines a first sensor value and, via wireless transmission (GSM/WLAN/DSRC etc.), requests a corresponding second sensor value from a corresponding second sensor of a second vehicle, then compares them for a plausibility check of the first value. It expressly requires a "Prüfungseinleitungskriterium" (examination-initiation criterion) — e.g. spatial proximity / comparable altitude — before the check is run, and repeats against multiple second vehicles to avoid falsely condemning a good sensor.
• Claim mapping / § 102 assessment: This is the single closest reference to the core concept of claim 1. It discloses generating a measured value (claim 1), receiving information relating to that measured value from another mobile device over a communication service (claim 1; claim 9), plausibility by comparison within an expected interval (claim 3), the spatial-proximity precondition (claim 1 relevance aspect; claim 8), and the wireless/mobile-radio/DSRC channel (claim 9).
• Anticipation verdict: Does not cleanly anticipate claim 1 — it compares against what is effectively one counterpart value at a time, and it lacks the "at least two items of information" plurality and the spatial-group-selection step. It is, however, the strongest § 103 primary reference, and it materially undercuts any argument that the "classify sources as relevant" concept is novel.

A2. DE 10 2011 077 998 A1 — Continental Teves AG & Co. oHG (U.S. counterpart: US 9,393,958 B2)

• Full citation: DE 10 2011 077 998 A1 / WO 2011/161177 A1 / US 9,393,958 B2, Continental Teves AG & Co. oHG, "Method and system for information validation / Informationsvalidierung" — priority 2010-06-23; published 2012-01-05 (https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102011077998A1/en; U.S. text http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/77/e5/ef/3a9d2a97cf047c/US9393958.pdf).
• Description: A first information item is detected essentially continuously by a vehicle-to-X communication device, a second information item is detected simultaneously by an on-board sensor or sensor group, and the two are validated by reconciling their information content when the contents correspond.
• Claim mapping / § 102 assessment: Directly discloses comparing own-sensor data against V2X-received information to validate the data (claim 1 core; claim 9), and reconciles information content of first and second items (claim 4-adjacent). It does not disclose the "at least two [external] items of information," the relevance-classification, or the spatial-group-matching limitations. → § 103 material, not § 102.

A3. DE 10 2010 002 092 A1 — Continental Teves AG & Co. oHG

• Full citation: DE 10 2010 002 092 A1, Continental Teves AG & Co. oHG, "Datenvorverarbeitung für Fahrzeug-zu-X-Kommunikation" (Data preprocessing for vehicle-to-X communication) — priority 2009-06-05; published 2010-12-09 (https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102010002092A1).
• Description: A C2X/V2X communication device with a data-preprocessing unit that performs data reduction, plausibilization, correction and validation of received V2X data before passing it to vehicle applications, classifying received data into classes handled differently.
• Claim mapping / § 102 assessment: Bears on claim 8 (use only information satisfying predetermined criteria) and the general "plausibility" idea, but it plausibilizes incoming V2X data rather than checking the ego device's own measured value against external data. → § 103 support; not anticipatory of claim 1.

A4. US 8,169,338 B2 / CN 101650873 A — GM Global Technology Operations

• Full citation: US 8,169,338 B2, GM Global Technology Operations LLC, "Inter-vehicle communication feature awareness and diagnosis system" — filed 2008-07-25; published 2012-05-01; CN 101650873 A (same family, 通用汽车环球科技运作公司), published 2010-02-17 (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8169338B2](/patent/US8169338B2)/en).
• Description: Uses inter-vehicle (V2V) communication to determine feature awareness and to diagnose vehicle systems, i.e. a vehicle leveraging information from other vehicles to assess/verify its own feature or sensor status.
• Claim mapping / § 102 assessment: Supports the concept of using peer-vehicle communications for a vehicle's self-diagnosis (claim 1 preamble; claim 10 informational output). Does not disclose the "at least two items of information," relevance classification, or spatial group-selection. → § 103.

A5. DE 10 2010 006 084 A1 — GM Global Technology Operations

• Full citation: DE 10 2010 006 084 A1, GM Global Technology Operations, Inc., "Combined vehicle-to-vehicle communication and object detection" — priority 2009-02-03; published 2010-10-07 (Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102010006084A1/en).
• Description: Combines V2V communication with object detection, merging communicated data with on-board sensor detection.
• Claim mapping / § 102 assessment: Relevant to fusing V2X data with own sensors (claim 1 context). Not anticipatory. → § 103.

A6. DE 10 2010 049 093 A1 — GM Global Technology Operations LLC

• Full citation: DE 10 2010 049 093 A1, GM Global Technology Operations LLC, "Method for operating at least one sensor of a vehicle and vehicle with at least one sensor" — priority 2010-10-21; published 2012-04-26.
• Description: Operation/monitoring of at least one vehicle sensor, per the title's own family listing.
• Claim mapping / § 102 assessment: Pertains to sensor operation and plausibility of vehicle sensor signals (claim 1 and claim 3 context). Not anticipatory. → § 103.

---

B. Secondary references (context / narrower facets)

Non-patent citation: International Search Report for PCT/EP2016/051466, dated 2016-04-19 (the PCT search report that produced this citation set — the examiner's actual art-selection basis).

---

C. Bottom-line § 102 / § 103 assessment

1. No cited reference, on its own, anticipates independent claim 1, 11, or 17. The two claim-1 limitations that carry the scope — (i) relevance classification of peer/infrastructure sources and (ii) spatial-group matching when multiple measurement-variable groups appear — are not disclosed together in any single reference I could verify.

2. The closest single reference is DE 10 2006 043 317 A1 (Bosch). It discloses peer-vehicle wireless cross-checking of a sensor value with an explicit spatial-proximity initiation criterion. It fails § 102 chiefly because it lacks the "at least two items of information" plurality and the group-selection step — but it is the natural § 103 primary reference for the "classify sources as relevant" concept.

3. DE 10 2011 077 998 A1 (Continental; US 9,393,958 B2) and DE 10 2010 002 092 A1 (Continental) are the strongest § 103 secondary references, supplying, respectively, "validate own sensor info against V2X info" and "plausibilize/preprocess received V2X data against criteria."

4. DE 10 2012 224 110 A1 (Continental) is worth flagging for the distance-based filtering facet that maps to claim 1's relevance limitation.

5. Family note: US 8,169,338 B2 and CN 101650873 A are the same GM family, and EP 2 385 511 A1 is the same Audi family as DE 10 2010 015 686 A1 — the citation table double-lists family members, so the true count of distinct references is smaller than the "15/17" headline.

Cautions on this analysis

• My source for the citation list is the Google Patents front-page table, not a live USPTO PAIR/PatentCenter "References Cited" export. Citation-type tags (whether each was cited by the examiner vs. listed as cited by third party) could not be independently confirmed in this session, so I have not asserted per-reference examiner/third-party status beyond the generic asterisk convention shown in the table.
• A genuine § 102 anticipation chart requires element-by-element mapping against the claims as issued, which I have approximated from the claim text you provided; paragraph-level pinpoint citations to each foreign reference's specification would require retrieving each full reference document, which exceeded this session's search budget.

Recommendation: to convert this to a defensible invalidity position, pull the full text of DE 10 2006 043 317 A1 and DE 10 2011 077 998 A1 (US 9,393,958 B2) and chart them jointly against claim 1, and separately verify the PCT search report (2016-04-19) to see which references the examiner treated as the A-category art.

I'll ground my analysis in the prior art listed on this patent's page and verify key reference disclosures before building the § 103 combinations.

Let me verify the remaining key prior-art references before constructing the combinations.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,760,926 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope and method note. This analysis is built on the prior-art record appearing on the patent's own page (the "Patent Citations (17)" / "Citations (15)" lists and the Non-Patent Citation — the PCT search report), supplemented by the live reference lookups I ran this session. I did not invent references: every reference named below appears in the "Prior Art" / "Cited By" / "Citations" sections of US10760926B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10760926B2/en). Where I quote reference content I cite the reference and URL. This is a defensive/hypothetical validity analysis, not a claim-construction opinion; I have not seen the prosecution history file wrapper (the face of the patent shows a single non-final action, a response, and allowance), so I cannot verify what arguments the applicant made. I flag uncertainty explicitly at the end.

---

1. § 103 framework

Under Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), I resolve (a) the scope and content of the prior art, (b) the differences between the prior art and each claim, (c) the level of ordinary skill, and (d) secondary considerations. Under KSR, a combination is obvious where a PHOSITA would have had a "reasoned" motivation to combine — including where the references are in the same field, address the same problem, and where the combination is a "predictable variation" of known techniques. Critically, the patent's own specification is an admission of a broad prior-art landscape: it states that "[v]arious methods are known for the purpose of checking the plausibility of vehicle sensor data, for example, a check to determine whether a defined range of values has been left or whether there are jumps in the values," and that the only missing piece was that "[n]o reference data valid for the current location and the current time have previously been available in the vehicle." That admission is important: the inventive concept is narrowly the importation of external reference data into the ego vehicle's own plausibility check, not plausibility checking itself.

Hypothetical PHOSITA. An engineer (B.S. E.E./Mechanical or equivalent, 2–5 years) in automotive sensor fusion and V2X/C2X communication, familiar with ETSI ITS-G5 / SAE J2735 DSRC message sets (CAM, DENM, BSM) and with sensor-diagnostic plausibility techniques. This is the skill level reflected in the cited Bosch, Continental and GM references.

---

2. Claim 1 element decomposition (the independent-claim core)

Claim 1 (and identically-worded claim 17, and claim 11 with the noted wording shift) requires:

Element E is the only genuinely contestable limitation; elements A–D are squarely met by the cited art, as I show below.

---

3. Combination A (primary) — Bosch '317 + Continental '092 + GM '084 (+ Continental '998)

Primary reference: DE 10 2006 043317 A1 (Robert Bosch GmbH) — "Sensor functionality examination method."
This is the single closest reference for the core concept. Its abstract (as reproduced on Google Patents) states: "involves determining sensor value of vehicle sensor, and comparing value with appropriate sensor value on plausibility, where appropriate sensor value is sampled by another sensor." Its description (DE102006043317A1 PDF, patentimages.storage.googleapis.com) confirms the concrete architecture:

• Fig. 1 shows a first vehicle 1 with a first sensor 2 producing first sensor value A1, and a second vehicle 3 at a distance d with a second sensor 4 producing second sensor value A2, where "A1 and A2 relate to the same physical quantity" ([0016]).
• The vehicles exchange values via transmitting/receiving units 5 using wireless transmission 6 (GSM band, or WIMAX/WLAN/DSRC) and an evaluation device 8 compares them for plausibility ([0016], [0009]).
• It even requires the second vehicle to be "in a distance suitable for data comparison" before a comparison-initiation criterion is met ([0017]) — i.e., a proto-relevance filter tied to distance.

This discloses elements A, B (two vehicles' information relating to the same measured quantity), and C (plausibility comparison). It does not expressly disclose a multi-source relevance classifier (D) beyond distance, nor the group/spatial disambiguation (E). Those are supplied by the following secondary references.

Secondary: DE 10 2010 002 092 A1 (Continental Teves) — "Data preprocessing for vehicle-to-X communication."
Google Patents abstract: data preprocessing occurs before the received V2X data are handed to vehicle applications; preprocessing may include "eine Datenreduktion" and "eine Plausibilisierung und gegebenenfalls eine Korrektur der Daten," and "the received data can be divided into different data classes which are treated differently." Further, and directly relevant to element E, the DE102010002092A1 family description (quoted in US9,531,737) explains that the reduction process causes "information about certain objects or situations to be suppressed," that "information about objects located too far from the receiving vehicle" is ignored, that "a large number of spatially close objects having fundamentally the same response to a situation are combined e.g. into a traffic jam," and that "it is also possible to take account solely of objects located in the intended channel of movement of the vehicle." That is: (i) an express relevance-classification/pre-filter (D), and (ii) the seed of grouping by spatial situation and lane ("intended channel of movement") for E.

Secondary: DE 10 2010 006 084 A1 / B4 (GM Global Technology Operations) — "Combined vehicle-to-vehicle communication and object detection."
The granted claim 1 (DE102010006084B4 PDF) recites: generating a sensor-object data map from detected objects, generating a V2V-object data map from a V2V message, fusing them, and — the key teaching — "if errors are determined between the V2V-object data map and the sensor-object data map, the priority of the V2V-object data map or of the sensor-object data map is established on the basis of a current location of the vehicle." This is functionally element E: when two datasets disagree, resolve the conflict by location/spatial context rather than by blind averaging.

Motivation to combine (Combination A). All three references are in the same field (automotive ego-vehicle perception/diagnostics + V2X), address the same problem (unreliable, GNSS-noisy external data and potentially faulty ego sensors), and the combination is a predictable variation: take Bosch's same-quantity cross-vehicle plausibility comparison, apply Continental '092's known relevance/preprocessing layer to the incoming V2X data (which exists precisely to avoid handing irrelevant or noisy V2X data to downstream applications), and apply GM '084's known location-based tie-breaker when the two datasets disagree. KSR supplies the motivation; the references themselves state the problem, which is enough under KSR ("the problem … known in the field"). No reference is relied on for a teaching that would be "unrecognizable" combined — each was cited by the examiner against this very patent.

---

4. Combination B — GM US 8,169,338 + Continental US 9,393,958 (DE 10 2011 077 998) + Continental DE 10 2012 224 110

Primary/secondary: US 8,169,338 B2 (GM) — "Inter-vehicle communication feature awareness and diagnosis system."
The Google Patents text explains that V2X messages can "extend a host vehicle's range of awareness … by providing relevant information regarding the status of traffic," and — critically — that the wireless message includes a "health status uncertainty flag" with "an uncertainty indicator relating to the remote vehicle's assessment of an uncertainty of the sensor information transmitted by the remote vehicle," which the host uses "to assess the degree of uncertainty affecting the accuracy of the information." It further uses the remote position to judge relevance: e.g., if a remote vehicle's GPS accuracy is only 3 m, the host cannot tell whether a stopped vehicle is in the host's lane or an adjacent lane, so it downgrades its warning. It relies on the PPS/GPS synchronization signal ("each of the wireless (DSRC) radios must have a synchronized global time signal"). This maps to elements A, B, C (assessing the remote sensor information), D (relevance/uncertainty classification), and supplies the time-synchronization and accuracy-class hooks for dependent claims 5/7/8.

Secondary: Continental US 9,393,958 B2 / DE 10 2011 077 998 A1 — "Method and system for validating information."
The '958 specification discloses the mirror-image concept the patent claims: a first information item detected continuously by a V2X communication device and a second information item detected by at least one individual sensor or group of sensors, "the first and/or second information items are validated by reconciling an information content of the first and second information items in the case of corresponding information content," using "an electronic information reconciling module" running "a software algorithm." It also describes merging multiple sensors' information contents into a composite item. This discloses element C (ego-sensor data checked against V2X-derived data) and the "at least two items" premise (multiple sensors / multiple fields), and shows the field's shared motivation: "the problems and weaknesses of the individual sensors can be compensated by the strengths of the other sensors."

Secondary: DE 10 2012 224 110 A1 (Continental Teves) — "Method for determining position data of objects."
Claim/description (PDF): the method comprises "detecting at least one distance between the object to be localized and an object whose position data are known" and "filtering the position data … based on the detected distance," to raise data integrity/reliability. This is a distance-based relevance filter on external data (element D), and is explicitly framed around "Datenintegrität … a measure of the reliability of the data."

Motivation to combine (Combination B). GM '338 and Continental '958 are both V2X-validation references in the identical field, both motivated by the same problem (V2X data is GNSS-noisy; ego sensors can fail), and both disclosed before the 2015 priority date (US 9,393,958 granted 2016 from a 2011 priority; '338 granted 2012). A PHOSITA seeking to make the ego vehicle's own sensor data trustworthy — exactly the problem the '926 patent states — would naturally (i) obtain redundant V2X sensor data (GM '338), (ii) reconcile it against the ego sensor (Continental '958), and (iii) filter which remote sources count by distance/uncertainty (Continental '110, GM '338). This is a combination of references "designed to solve the same problem," which KSR treats as strong evidence of obviousness.

---

5. Combination C — adding the relevance/decision-policy thread (Microsoft WO 2009/158211 A2; Audi EP 2 385 508 A2)

Microsoft WO 2009/158211 A2 — "Local decision policies about the sharing of sensed data…". Listed on the patent's citation list, it discloses local decision policies governing which sensed data from personal/mobile devices are shared, to enhance privacy and reduce communication cost. That is a direct teaching of classifying information as relevant/irrelevant before it is used or transmitted (element D) in a mobile-device sensor-sharing network — supporting the "classified as relevant" limitation and claim 8 ("information is used only if it satisfies predetermined criteria").

Audi EP 2 385 508 A2 — "Method for testing the calibration of a remote sensor for a motor vehicle." This is the reference that most directly undercuts the notion that validating a remote sensor's data against a reference was novel: it addresses testing/validating a remote sensor's calibration. A PHOSITA combining this with GM '338 or Continental '958 arrives at using peer data as a reference against which data quality is judged. The other Audi/Continental/GM items on the citation list (Audi DE102010015686A1 / EP2385511A1; GM DE102010049093A1 "method for operating at least one sensor of a vehicle"; VW DE102010023603A1; DE102007009335A1; US2008/0284575A1; CN103761889A; DE102010006084A1) are cumulative on the sensor-diagnostics + V2V-context theme and reinforce that the field was crowded with such teachings.

---

6. Dependent claims 2–10 and 13–16 — one-line obviousness map

Note on a claim-wording quirk (flagged, not corrected). Claim 11 shifts from "vehicle" to "transportation vehicle" and recites "usable only measurement variables of that group of the other relevant mobile devices and/or stationary vehicles," whereas claim 1 says "stationary infrastructure units." Claim 17 recites the same method and expressly defines the "mobile device" as a mobile radio device, navigation device, mobile computer and/or vehicle. These wording differences do not change the § 103 analysis because the same reference combinations disclose the underlying subject matter, but they are worth noting for any infringement/claim-scope dispute. This is consistent with the earlier section's flag on the claim-11 wording; no contradiction with the prior sections.

---

7. The crux limitation — element E (group/spatial disambiguation)

This is the limitation most likely to be asserted as the point of novelty. I do not think it survives § 103 on this record, but it is the closest call:

• GM DE102010006084A1/B4 teaches priority determined by the vehicle's current location when the V2V map and the sensor map disagree — i.e., exactly the "pick the data that matches the ego vehicle's situation" logic of element E.
• Continental DE102010002092A1 teaches (a) grouping "spatially close objects having fundamentally the same response" into a class, and (b) restricting to objects in the "intended channel of movement" of the vehicle — i.e., lane-based spatial matching.
• GM US8169338B2 supplies lane-level resolution of conflicting remote data (same-lane vs adjacent-lane).

Combining these three discloses: identify groups of measurement variables from grouped remote sources, examine their spatial situation (lane/channel-of-movement/position), and use only the group whose spatial situation corresponds to the ego vehicle. The patent's own motivating example (temperature — vehicles in the sun lane vs. the shade lane) is a straightforward application of Continental '092's "spatially close objects with the same response" grouping plus GM '084's location-based tie-break; the sun/shade distinction is a mere spatial-clustering application a PHOSITA would reach predictably.

Contrast with anticipation. I would not assert anticipation (both values depending on the combination and on how "measurement variables" is construed vs. "data"). This is an obviousness case, and the motivation is strong because the patent itself frames the problem as one of resolving conflicting/ambiguous external data (its operations 500–600), which the cited art already addresses.

---

8. Motivation to combine — consolidated

1. Same field / same problem. Bosch '317, Continental '092 / '110 / '958 and GM '338/'084 are all 2006–2013 automotive references addressing unreliable ego-sensor data and/or unreliable GNSS-based V2X data. KSR holds that a combination of references "designed to solve the same problem" is strong evidence of obviousness.
2. Explicit cross-motivation in the references themselves. Continental '958 states that "the problems and weaknesses of the individual sensors can be compensated by the strengths of the other sensors"; GM '084 states that "errors in a vehicle's detection devices can be corrected or compensated" by fusing V2X and sensor data; Continental '110 is explicitly motivated by "Datenintegrität." These are the very motivations the '926 patent recites.
3. Predictable variation / mere automation. Using a second and third external source instead of one is a predictable scale-up; applying a known relevance filter (distance, uncertainty, data class) before a known comparison is routine and yields predictable results ("improved reliability"), which KSR treats as obvious.
4. Standards context is background knowledge. ETSI/SAE CAM/DENM/BSM messages are broadcast up to ~10×/s with timestamps, easily supplying "at least two items of information" — indeed, the '926 specification itself concedes this ("status messages (currently CAM (EU), BSM1 (USA)), from event messages (currently DEMN (EU), BSM1+2 (USA))").
5. The patent's own admissions narrow the gap. The specification concedes that range/jump plausibility checking was known and that only external reference data in the vehicle was missing — and the cited Continental '958 and Bosch '317 references were already supplying external multi-vehicle reference data before the priority date.

---

9. Anticipated counter-arguments and secondary considerations

• "The combination is impermissible hindsight / uses non-analogous art." Weak: every reference cited here was cited by the examiner against this patent, and all are in the same technical field.
• "Teach-away." The cited references do not teach away from using V2X data for plausibility; to the contrary, Continental '958 calls for reconciling V2X information with sensor information. I found no express teach-away in the record.
• Secondary considerations (objective indicia). I found no evidence in the record of commercial success, licensing, copying, industry praise, or long-felt-but-unsolved need tied to this patent. Notably, the "Field Cites" / "Families Citing" data show Volkswagen itself filing later plausibility-related continuations (e.g., DE 10 2021 127 078 / Cariad SE, "Method for checking the plausibility of a trajectory generated on the basis of swarm data"), which is evidence of an active development program but not of nexus-qualifying objective indicia. Because I have no access to the file wrapper, I cannot evaluate any non-obviousness arguments the applicant may have made (e.g., a "the prior art compares sensors within one vehicle, not across vehicles" argument, which was presumably overcome because Bosch '317 does compare across vehicles).

---

10. Bottom-line conclusion

On the prior-art record cited on this patent's page, claim 1 (and its mirror claims 11/17, and apparatus claims 12) would have been obvious under § 103 as a combination of:

• Bosch DE 10 2006 043317 A1 (cross-vehicle, same-physical-quantity sensor plausibility comparison over wireless) and/or GM US 8,169,338 B2 (V2V sensor info + uncertainty/accuracy classification + lane-level relevance + GPS/PPS synchronization) and/or Continental US 9,393,958 / DE 10 2011 077 998 (reconciling V2X information against ego sensor information);
• in further view of Continental DE 10 2010 002 092 A1 (V2X data preprocessing, relevance/data classes, spatial-close grouping, "intended channel of movement") and GM DE 10 2010 006 084 A1/B4 (location-based priority when V2V and sensor data conflict) to supply elements D and E;
• optionally with Continental DE 10 2012 224 110 A1 (distance-based filtering for data integrity), Microsoft WO 2009/158211 A2 (local decision policy on sharing sensed data), and Audi EP 2 385 508 A2 (testing a remote sensor's calibration) as cumulative art on relevance filtering and remote-sensor validation.

The dependent claims are each met or rendered obvious by the same references, and element E — the one candidate point of novelty — is disclosed or suggested by GM DE 10 2010 006 084 (location-based priority of the conflicting dataset) in combination with Continental DE 10 2010 002 092 (grouping spatially-close objects and restricting to the intended channel of movement).

---

11. Uncertainty statement

• I have not seen the file wrapper, claim-construction positions, or any terminal disclaimer / certificate of correction, so my analysis assumes the claim text and priority as printed on Google Patents.
• My characterizations of DE 10 2006 043317 A1 and DE 10 2012 224 110 A1 are based on machine-readable abstracts/PDF excerpts (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com and Google Patents), which are reliable as to their quoted passages but which I could not fully read cover-to-cover; a full-text review in the original German could reveal or foreclose additional teachings. I could not fully retrieve the text of WO 2009/158211 A2 (Microsoft) or EP 2 385 508 A2 (Audi) this session (my searches on those were truncated); I have therefore relied on their titles and their role in the citation record and flagged the reduced confidence.
• "Obviousness" here is an analytical opinion, not a legal conclusion; a court or the PTAB could weigh the KSR motivations differently, and any objective-indicia evidence (which I did not find) could rebut.
• Consistent with the earlier litigation section, I found no litigation, IPR/PGR, or CAFC activity on US 10,760,926, so none of the above reflects an adjudicated validity determination — it is a fresh § 103 analysis on the face of the cited prior art. No contradiction with the previously generated sections was found; the claim-11 "transportation vehicle" wording quirk flagged earlier is preserved here.