IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK...

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

In re Patent of: Fortune et al. Attorney Docket No.: 15625-0020IP1

U.S. Patent No.: 6,012,007

Issue Date: January 4, 2000

Appl. Serial No.: 08/868,338

Filing Date: June 3, 1997

Title: OCCUPANT DETECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AIR BAG SYSTEMS

Mail Stop Patent Board Patent Trial and Appeal Board U.S. Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,012,007 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319, 37 C.F.R. § 42

Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1 IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ....................... 1

A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................ 1 B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ......................................... 1 C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ...................... 4

II. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 103 ......................................... 4

III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ....................... 4

A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)................................. 4 B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b) and Relief ................................. 4 C. The Effective Priority Date of the ’007 Patent ......................................... 6

IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 7

V. AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ’007 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ................................................................................................... 8

A. GROUND 1 – Claim 1-3, 5, 9, 17, 20, and 21 are unpatentable over Schousek under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ..................................................................... 8

1. Overview of Schousek .................................................................... 9 B. GROUND 2 – Claims 18-19 are unpatentable over Schousek in view of Blackburn under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................. 28

1. Overview of Blackburn ................................................................. 29 Reasons to combine Schousek and Blackburn .................................. 31

C. GROUND 3 - Claim 1-3, 5, and 17-21 are unpatentable over Blackburn under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................... 37 D. GROUND 4 – Claim 1-3, 5, and 17-21 are unpatentable over Blackburn in view of Schousek under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................. 53

Reasons to combine Blackburn and Schousek .................................. 57

VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 59


iii

EXHIBITS

Honda-1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 to Fortune et al. (“the ’007 Patent”)

Honda-1002 Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’007 Patent (“the Prosecution History”)

Honda-1003 Declaration of Dr. Kirsten M. Carr re the ’007 Patent

Honda-1004 U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327 (“Schousek”)

Honda-1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,232,243 (“Blackburn”)

Honda-1006 Joint Claim Construction Brief , Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., et al., Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM, Document 46 (Joint Claim Construction Brief)


1

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Honda”) petitions for

Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of

claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 17-21 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.

6,012,007 (“the ’007 Patent”). As explained in this petition, there exists a

reasonable likelihood that Honda will prevail in demonstrating unpatentability with

respect to at least one of the Challenged Claims based on teachings set forth in at

least the references presented in this petition. Honda respectfully submits that an

IPR review should be instituted and that the Challenged Claims should be canceled

as unpatentable.

I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1)

A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)

Petitioner, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., is a real party-in-interest. Real

parties-in-interest also include Honda of America Mfg., Inc., Honda Patents &

Technologies North America, LLC, and Honda Motor Co., Ltd. .

B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)

The following judicial or administrative matters may affect or be affected by

a decision in this proceeding: Signal IP, Inc. v. Fiat U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 2-

14-cv-13864, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, filed

on October 7, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company,

Case No. 2-14-cv-13729, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of


2

Michigan, filed on September 26, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v.

Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Case No. 2-14-cv-03114, in the U.S. District

Court for the Central District of California, filed on April 23, 2014, currently

pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2-14-cv-03106, in the

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed on April 23, 2014,

currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Fiat USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 2-14-cv-03105,

in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed on April 23,

2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

d/b/a Audi of America, Inc. et al., Case No. 2-14-cv-03113, in the U.S. District


pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Case No. 2-

14-cv-03108, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed

on April 23, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Volvo Cars of North

America, LLC, Case No. 2-14-cv-03107, in the U.S. District Court for the Central

District of California, filed on April 23, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v.

BMW of North America, LLC et al., Case No. 2-14-cv-03111, in the U.S. District


pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al., Case No. 2-14-cv-

03109, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed on

April 23, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Nissan North America, Inc.,


3

Case No. 2-14-cv-02962, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of

California, filed on April 17, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Subaru of

America, Inc., Case No. 2-14-cv-02963, in the U.S. District Court for the Central


Suzuki Motor of America, Inc., Case No. 8-14-cv-00607, in the U.S. District Court

for the Central District of California, filed on April 17, 2014, currently pending;

Signal IP, Inc. v. Kia Motors America, Inc., Case No. 2-14-cv-02457, in the U.S.

District Court for the Central District of California, filed on April 1, 2014,

currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al., Case

No. 2-14-cv-02454, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,

filed on April 1, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of

America, Inc., Case No. 8-14-cv-00491, in the U.S. District Court for the Central


Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Case No. 2-14-cv-02459, in the U.S. District Court

for the Central District of California, filed on April 1, 2014, currently pending;

Signal IP, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., Case No. 8-14-cv-00497,

in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed on April 1,

2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc.,

Case No. 2-14-cv-02462, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of

California, filed on April 1, 2014, currently pending; and Takata Seat Belts In v.


4

Delphi Automotive Sys, et al., Case No. 5-04-cv-00464, in the U.S. District Court

for the Western District of Texas, filed on May 27, 2004.

C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)

Honda designates Joshua A. Griswold, Reg. No. 46,310, as Lead Counsel

and Daniel Smith, Reg. No. 71,278, as Backup Counsel. Mr. Griswold and Mr.

Smith are available for service at Fish & Richardson P.C., 60 South Sixth Street,

Suite 3200, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (T: 214-292-4034). All are available for

electronic service by email at [email protected].

II. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 103

Honda authorizes charges to Deposit Account No. 06-1050 for the fee set in

37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition and for any related additional fees.

III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104

A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)

Honda certifies that the ’007 Patent is available for IPR. The present

petition is being filed within one year of the April 4, 2014 service of the complaint

against Honda in the Central District of California action. Honda is not barred or

estopped from requesting this review challenging the Challenged Claims on the

below-identified grounds.

B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b) and Relief

Honda requests an IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds set forth in


5

the table shown below and requests that each of the Challenged Claims be found

unpatentable. An explanation of how these claims are unpatentable under the

statutory grounds identified below is provided in the form of the detailed

description that follows, indicating where each claim element can be found in the

cited prior art, and the relevance of that prior art, including explanations related to

obviousness. Additional explanation and support for each ground of rejection is

set forth in Exhibit Honda-1003, the Declaration of Dr. Kirsten M. Carr (“Carr”),

referenced throughout this Petition.

Ground ’007 Patent Claims Basis for Rejection

Ground 1 1-3, 5, 9, 17, 20, 21 Anticipated by Schousek under 35 U.S.C. § 102

Ground 2 18-19 Obvious over Schousek in view of Blackburn under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Ground 3 1-3, 5, 17-21 Obvious over Blackburn under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Ground 4 1-3, 5, 17-21 Obvious over Blackburn in view of Schousek under 35 U.S.C. § 103

The ’007 Patent issued on January 4, 2000, from application no. 08/868,338

(Honda 1002), which was filed June 3, 1997. The ’007 Patent is a continuation-in-

part of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 (the “’375 Patent”), which was filed December

1, 1995. As discussed in detail in Section III.C below, the claims of the ’007

Patent are not supported by the earlier ’375 Patent, and thus are not entitled to the

earlier priority date. Therefore, the earliest possible priority date of the ’007 Patent


6

is June 3, 1997 (hereinafter “the Critical Date”).

Schousek (U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327, Exhibit Honda-1004) qualifies as

prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Schousek issued from a U.S.

application filed on December 12, 1995, more than one year before the Critical

Date, and thus is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Blackburn (U.S. Patent No. 5,232,243, Exhibit Honda-1005) qualifies as

prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b). Blackburn issued on August 3,

1993, more than one year before the Critical Date, and thus is prior art at least

under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

C. The Effective Priority Date of the ’007 Patent

The Challenged Claims of the ’007 Patent include subject matter not

supported by the application to which the patent claims priority, and therefore are

not entitled to the earlier claimed priority date of December 1, 1995.

The ’007 Patent issued based on an application filed June 3, 1997. See Ex.

1001 (’007 Patent), Face; see Ex. 1002 (’007 Prosecution History). The ’007

Patent is a continuation-in-part of the ’375 Patent which was filed on December 1,

1995. See Ex. 1001, Face. The ’007 Patent originally did not claim priority back

to the ’375 Patent. See Ex. 1002, June 3, 1997 Original Application, at 1. The

examiner rejected the independent claims as being “unpatentable over” the ’375

Patent. See id., April 9, 1999, at 2-5. In response, the Patent Owner amended the


7

application to include the priority claim and argued that the ’007 Patent was

“entitled to be considered as a continuation-in-part of the” ’375 Patent. See id.,

July 9, 1999, at 3-4. The Patent Owner further argued that the claims of the patent

“recite subject matter that is neither shown nor suggested” in the ’375 Patent. See

id. at 3 (emphasis added). In particular, the Patent Owner admitted that the ’375

Patent does not describe “the steps of (1) establishing a lock threshold above the

normal allow threshold, (2) setting a lock flag when the total force or relative

weight parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for

a given time, (3) clearing the lock flag when the total force or relative weight

parameter is below an empty seat threshold for a time, and (4) allowing

deployment while the lock flag is set” as recited in the independent claims of the

’007 Patent. Id. at Applicant Arguments and Remarks Made in the June 9, 1999

Amendment, Pg. 4. Accordingly, Petitioner submits that the claims of the ’007

Patent are not entitled to the earlier filing date of the ’375 Patent, and that the

earliest effective filing date of the ’007 Patent is June 3, 1997 (its actual filing

date).

IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), claims in an unexpired patent are

given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the

patent in which it appears. No relevant issues of claim construction are presented


8

in the claims of the ’007 Patent, and all terms should therefore simply be given

their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as commonly

understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. Further details of how the claims

are being interpreted are discussed in the relevant sections below.

Petitioner expressly reserves the right to advance different constructions in

the matter now pending in district court, as the applicable claim construction

standard for that proceeding (“ordinary and customary meaning”) is different than

the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (“BRI”) applied in IPR. Further,

due to the different claim construction standards in the proceedings, Petitioner

identifying any feature in the cited references as teaching a claim term of the ’007

Patent is not an admission by Petitioner that that claim term is met by any feature

for infringement purposes.

Petitioner also maintains that several terms in the claims of ’007 Patent are

indefinite, but since issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112 may not be raised in Inter Partes

Review proceedings, Petitioner has attempted to interpret all claim terms.

Petitioner expressly reserves the right to raise the issue of indefiniteness should the

issue arise in this or other proceedings.

V. AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ’007 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE

A. GROUND 1 – Claim 1-3, 5, 9, 17, 20, and 21 are unpatentable over Schousek under 35 U.S.C. § 102


9

1. Overview of Schousek

Schousek describes “[a]n air bag restraint system is equipped with seat

occupant sensing apparatus for a passenger seat which detects both infant seats and

adults and distinguishes between rear and forward facing infant seats.” Ex. 1004,

Abstract. “Air bag deployment is inhibited . . . . when an occupied rear facing

infant seat is present.” Id.

The ’007 Patent discusses Schousek in its Background section, stating that

Schousek describes “incorporat[ing] pressure sensors in the passenger seat and

monitor[ing] the response of the sensors by a microprocessor to evaluate the

weight and weight distribution, and for inhibiting deployment in certain cases.”

Ex. 1001, 1:35-38. The ’007 Patent characterizes Schousek as “a foundation for

[its] invention” but states that “[i]t is desirable, however to provide a system which

is particularly suited for discriminating between heavy and light occupants and for

robust operation under dynamic conditions such as occupant shifting or bouncing

due to rough roads,” thereby implying that these features are absent in Schousek.

Id. at 1:43-48 (emphasis added). However, as described in detail below, Schousek

describes techniques for discriminating between heavy and light objects (e.g.,

between infants and adults) and for “filtering out . . . occasional spurious [air bag

enablement] decisions, which may be due to occupant movement or other

instability[.]” Ex. 1004, 6:2-5 (emphasis added).


10

The following sections provide example disclosure from Schousek that

anticipates claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 17-21 of the ’007 Patent, as well as explanations of

how each portion of the reference applies to each limitation of the claims.

Claim 1

The following claim chart identifies example disclosure in Schousek that

teaches the elements of claim 1:

Claim Language Schousek [1.0]: “In a vehicle restraint system having a controller for deploying air bags and means for selectively allowing deployment according to the outputs of seat sensors responding to the weight of an occupant, a method of allowing deployment according to sensor response”

See, e.g., 5:32-39, FIG. 5A; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 15-16.

[1.1]: “determining measures represented by individual sensor outputs and calculating from the sensor outputs a relative weight parameter”

See, e.g., Abstract, 4:51-60; Ex. 1003 ¶ 17.

[1.2]: “establishing a first threshold of the relative weight parameter”

See, e.g., 2:31-38, 5:35-37; Ex. 1003 ¶ 18.

[1.3]: “allowing deployment when the relative weight parameter is above the first threshold”

See, e.g., Abstract, 2:31-34, 5:35-50, FIG. 5A; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19-22, Ground 1, [1.1]-[1.2], supra

[1.4]: “establishing a lock threshold above the first threshold”

See, e.g., 2:31-34, 3:32-39, 5:32-39 & 55-58; Ex. 1003 ¶ 23, Ground 1, [1.3], supra

[1.5]: “setting a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given time”

See, e.g., 5:53-63, 6:2-5; Ex. 1003 ¶ 24, Ground 1, [1.1], [1.4], supra

[1.6]: “establishing an unlock threshold at a level indicative of an empty seat”

See, e.g., 5:36-39; Ex. 1003, ¶ 25.

[1.7]: “clearing the flag when the relative weight parameter is below the unlock threshold for a time”

See, e.g., 5:53-63; Ex. 1003 ¶ 26, Ground 1 [1.4], [1.6], supra


11

Claim Language Schousek [1.8]: “allowing deployment while the lock flag is set”

See, e.g.,5:36-39, 53-63; Ex. 1003 ¶ 27, Ground 1 [1.5] - [1.7], supra

[1.0]: “In a vehicle restraint system having a controller for deploying air bags and means for selectively allowing deployment according to the outputs of seat sensors responding to the weight of an occupant, a method of allowing deployment according to sensor response”

As a threshold matter, in the present paper, Petitioner does not assert a

position as to whether the preamble of claim 1 is limiting or non-limiting, and

explicitly reserves the right to assert either position in this or any other proceeding.

Regardless, Schousek still teaches the limitations stated in the preamble of claim 1.

Petitioner also submits that the language “means for selectively allowing

deployment according to the outputs of seat sensors responding to the weight of an

occupant” in claim 1 should be interpreted as a mean-plus-function limitation

under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. The corresponding structure described in the ’007 that

performs the function of “selectively allowing deployment according to the outputs

of seat sensors responding to the weight of an occupant” is the “microprocessor

22” which “analyzes the sensor inputs and issues a decision whether to inhibit” or

allow “air bag deployment” based on the algorithms of Figures 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10.

See Ex. 1001, 3:4-7; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 15-16.

Schousek describes an “air bag restraint system [that] is equipped with [a]

seat occupant sensing apparatus for a passenger seat which detects both infant seats

and adults and distinguishes between and forward facing infant seats.” Ex. 1004,


12

Abstract (emphasis added). Schousek states that “the sensing apparatus comprises

eight variable resistance pressure sensors in the seat cushion.” Id. (emphasis

added). A “microprocessor” monitors “the response of each sensor to occupant

pressure,” and calculates a “total weight and weight distribution” for an occupant

of the seat. Id. (emphasis added). Schousek describes that the detected weight

from the seat sensors “is used to discriminate between an occupied infant seat, an

adult and no occupant,” and that the “weight distribution is used to distinguish

between forward and rear facing infant seats.” Id. (emphasis added). Ex. 1003, ¶

15.

If the microprocessor determines that “the total weight parameter is greater

than the maximum infant seat weight <72> this indicates that a larger occupant is

present and a decision is made to allow deployment <74>.” Id. at 5:32-35

(emphasis added). Further, if the microprocessor determines that “the total weight

parameter is less than the minimum weight threshold for an occupied infant seat

<76> it is determined that the seat is empty and a decision is made to inhibit

deployment <78>.” Id. at 5:36-39 (emphasis added). This process is shown in

FIG. 5A of Schousek, Ex. 1003, ¶ 16:


13

Ex. 1004, FIG. 5A (annotated)

Accordingly, the air bag restraint system of Schousek including a

microprocessor that (i) determines current weight and weight distribution values

from an array of seat sensors and (ii) determines whether to allow deployment of

the air bag based on the determined weight and weight distribution values discloses

Microprocessor calculates weight and weight distribution from sensor outputs

Air bag deployment allowed

Air bag deployment inhibited

Air bag enablement decisions based on weight from sensors


14

“[i]n a vehicle restraint system having a controller for deploying air bags and

means for selectively allowing deployment according to the outputs of seat sensors

responding to the weight of an occupant, a method of allowing deployment

according to sensor response” as recited in the claim.


Schousek states that “the sensing apparatus comprises eight variable

resistance pressure sensors in the seat cushion.” Ex. 1004 (emphasis added). A

“microprocessor” monitors “the response of each sensor to occupant pressure,” and

calculates a “total weight” parameter for an occupant of the seat from these sensor

outputs. Id. (emphasis added); Ex. 1003, ¶ 17. This total weight parameter is

calculated by reading a “current voltage” produced by each sensor and

“subtract[ing]” the current voltage “from [a] calibration voltage” for the sensor

representing a “voltage for an empty seat condition.” Ex. 1004, 4:51-56; Ex. 1003,

¶ 17. Schousek describes that “[t]he difference voltage then is a function of the

pressure exerted on the sensor and is empirically related to actual occupant

weight,” and that “the sum of measured voltage differences. . . . represents

occupant weight[.]” Ex. 1004, 4:58-60. Therefore, the weight parameter is a

measure of the force applied to the sensor relative to a calibrated value

representing the amount of force detected when the seat is unoccupied (e.g., force

applied on the sensor by fabric laid over it, or other forces). Ex. 1003, ¶ 17.


15

Accordingly, to the extent that a meaning can be ascribed to the term

“relative weight parameter,”1 calculating a total weight parameter based on the

difference of the current voltage read from each sensors from a calibration voltage

for the sensor, as taught by Schousek, discloses “determining measures represented

by individual sensor outputs and calculating from the sensor outputs a relative

weight parameter,” as recited in the claim.


Schousek describes establishing a “minimum weight threshold” based on

“the minimum weight of an occupied infant seat (about 10 pounds)[.]” Ex. 1004,

5:35-37, 2:31-32 (emphasis added). Schousek states that the minimum weight

threshold is “compared to the measured total weight parameter” (the relative

weight parameter, as discussed at [1.1], supra) “to determine whether the vehicle

seat is holding an occupied infant seat . . . or has no occupant.” Id. at 2:34-38

(emphasis added); Ex. 1003, ¶ 18.

Accordingly, establishing a minimum weight threshold that is compared to

1 Per the BRI standard, and for the purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioner

proceeds under the assumption that the term “relative weight parameter” is

definite, but reserves the right to argue in other proceedings that this term is

indefinite.


16

the measured total weight parameter from the sensors to determine whether the

seat is occupied, as taught by Schousek, discloses “establishing a first threshold of

the relative weight parameter” as recited in the claim.


As previously discussed, Schousek teaches a relative weight parameter (the

total weight parameter) and a first threshold (the minimum infant seat weight

threshold). See Ground 1, [1.1]-[1.2], supra. Schousek describes at least two cases

in which deployment of the air bag is allowed when the total weight parameter is

above the minimum infant weight threshold. Ex. 1003, ¶ 19.

First, Schousek describes that “[i]f the total weight parameter is greater than

the maximum infant seat weight . . . this indicates that a larger occupant is present

and a decision is made to allow deployment[.]” Ex. 1004, 5:32-35 (emphasis

added). FIG. 5A from Schousek shows this process:

Ex. 1004, detail of FIG 5A (annotated)

The “maximum infant seat weight” represents the “maximum weight of an

occupied infant seat (50 pounds),” and is greater than the minimum infant seat

Determine that the relative weight parameter is greater than the first threshold

Allow deployment


17

weight threshold (defined by Schousek as “about 10 pounds”). Id. at 2:31-34; Ex.

1003, ¶ 20. Accordingly, allowing deployment of the air bag when the total weight

parameter is greater than the maximum infant seat weight threshold, and thus

greater than the minimum infant seat weight threshold, as taught by Schousek,

discloses “allowing deployment when the relative weight parameter is above the

first threshold” as recited in the claim.

Second, Schousek teaches “[i]f the total weight parameter is between” the

two weight thresholds described above, “the occupant is identified as an occupied

infant seat or a small child[.]” Ex. 1004, 5:42-44; Ex. 1003, ¶ 21. Schousek

describes that “[i]f the center of weight distribution is not forward of the reference

line, a forward facing infant seat is detected and a decision is made to allow

deployment of the air bag[.]” Ex. 1004, 5:47-50 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003, ¶ 21.

This process is shown in FIG. 5A:



18

Ex. 1004, detail of FIG. 5A (annotated)

Schousek thus describes that if the total weight parameter is greater than the

minimum infant seat weight, but less than the maximum infant seat weight,

deployment of the airbag is selectively allowed according to the weight distribution

detected by the sensors. Ex. 1003, ¶ 22. Accordingly, Schousek discloses

“allowing deployment when the relative weight parameter is above the first

threshold” as recited in the claim.


As described above, Schousek describes a “max infant seat threshold” which

is greater than the “min infant seat threshold.” See Ground 1, [1.3], supra; Ex.

1004, 5:32-39. Schousek states that the “maximum infant seat weight” represents

Selectively allow deployment based on weight distribution



19

the “maximum weight of an occupied infant seat (50 pounds),” and is greater than

the minimum infant seat weight threshold (defined by Schousek as “about 10

pounds”). Ex. 1004, 2:31-34; Ex. 1003, ¶ 23. This maximum infant seat weight is

a lock threshold because the air bag enablement decision locking procedure

described below at [1.5] is performed when the detected weight exceeds the

maximum infant seat weight. See Ex. 1004, 5:55-58; Ex. 1003, ¶ 23.

Accordingly, by establishing a “max infant seat threshold” greater than the

“min infant seat threshold,” Schousek teaches “establishing a lock threshold above

the first threshold” as recited in the claim.


Schousek describes a process operable to “filter out . . . an occasional

spurious [deployment] decision, which may be due to occupant movement or other

instability[.]” Ex. 1004, 6:2-5 (emphasis added). Schousek describes that the

process includes a loop that stores a current air bag enablement decision “in an

array <90> and if less than five decisions have been stored <92> a decision counter

is incremented <94>” and the process returns to the start of the loop. Ex. 1004,

5:53-55; Ex. 1003, ¶ 24. Schousek continues: “[i]f the counter reaches a count of

five, the counter is cleared <96> and the decisions are compared to determine if

they are all the same <98>.” Ex. 1004, 5:55-58; Ex. 1003, ¶ 24. If all five values

in the decision array “are the same, the current decision is transmitted to” a


20

supplemental inflatable restraint (SIR) module controlling airbag deployment, and

“the current decision is labelled as the previous decision[.]” Ex. 1004, 5:58-61;

Ex. 1003, ¶ 24. If all five decisions in the array “are not the same, the previous

decision is retransmitted to the” SIR module. Ex. 1004, 5:61-63; Ex. 1003, ¶ 24.

Accordingly, Schousek teaches setting the previous decision (a lock flag) if the

same air bag enablement decision has been stored in five consecutive cycles in the

decision array. Ex. 1003, ¶ 24; see Ex. 1004, 5:53-61. One of the enablement

decisions stored in the array is the decision to deploy if the total weight parameter

(the relative weight parameter) is above the maximum infant weight threshold (the

lock threshold). Ex. 1003, ¶ 24; see Ex. 1004, 5:53-55; Ground 1, [1.1], [1.4],

supra.

Accordingly, setting the previous decision to allow deployment if all five

enablement decisions in the decision array are to allow deployment when the total

weight parameter is above the maximum infant seat weight threshold, as taught by

Schousek, teaches “setting a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is above

the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given time” as recited in

the claim.


Schousek describes that “min infant seat threshold” is used to determine

whether the seat is empty, stating that “if the total weight parameter is less than the


21

minimum weight threshold for an occupied infant seat <76> it is determined that

the seat is empty[.]” Ex. 1004, 5:36-39 (emphasis added), Ex. 1003, ¶ 25.

Petitioner notes that, in the pending case in the Central District of California

involving the ’007 Patent, the Patent Owner has proposed that the term “level

indicative of an empty seat” be construed to mean a “measurement indicative of an

empty seat or small occupant.” See Ex. 1006, p. 35. The “min infant seat

threshold” from Schousek, which is defined as “minimum weight threshold for an

occupied infant seat” and from which “it is determined that the seat is empty,” is

consistent with this proposed construction. See Ex. 1004, 5:36-39; Ex. 1003, ¶ 25.

Accordingly, establishing the minimum infant seat weight threshold below

which the total weight parameter indicates that the seat is empty, as taught by

Schousek, discloses “establishing an unlock threshold at a level indicative of an

empty seat” as recited in the claim.

[1.7]: “clearing the flag2 when the relative weight parameter is below the unlock threshold for a time”

Schousek describes that each air bag enablement decision “is stored in an

2 For the purposes of the present analysis, Petitioner interprets this recitation of

“the flag” to mean the previously recited “lock flag,” but reserves the right to argue

that this recitation of “the flag” is indefinite in this or other proceedings.


22

array <90> and if less than five decisions have been stored <92> a decision counter

is incremented <94>.” Ex. 1004, 5:53-55; Ex. 1003, ¶ 24. Schousek continues:

“[i]f the counter reaches a count of five, the counter is cleared <96> and the

decisions are compared to determine if they are all the same <98>.” Ex. 1004,

5:55-58; Ex. 1003, ¶ 24. If all five values in the decision array “are the same, the

current decision is transmitted to” a supplemental inflatable restraint (SIR) module

controlling airbag deployment, and “the current decision is labelled as the previous

decision[.]” Ex. 1004, 5:59-62; Ex. 1003, ¶ 24. If all five decisions in the array

“are not the same, the previous decision is retransmitted to the” SIR module. Ex.

1004, 5:61-63; Ex. 1003, ¶ 24. One of the enablement decisions stored in the array

is the decision to inhibit deployment if the total weight parameter (the relative

weight parameter) is below the minimum infant weight threshold (the unlock

threshold). Ex. 1003, ¶ 26; see Ex. 1004, 5:53-55; Ground 1, [1.4], [1.6], supra.

Accordingly, Schousek teaches updating the previous decision to “inhibit

deployment” (clearing the lock flag) if a decision to inhibit deployment (i.e.,

because the total weight parameter is less than the minimum infant seat weight

threshold) has been stored in five consecutive cycles in the decision array. Ex.

1003, ¶ 26; see Ex. 1004, 5:53-61.

Accordingly, updating the previous decision to “inhibit deployment” if a

decision to inhibit deployment because the total weight parameter is less than the


23

minimum infant seat weight threshold has been stored in five consecutive cycles in

the decision array, as taught by Schousek, teaches “clearing the flag when the

relative weight parameter is below the unlock threshold for a time” as recited in the

claim.

[1.8]: “allowing deployment while the lock flag is set”

As discussed above, Schousek describes that the previous decision (the lock

flag) will be set to “allow deployment” until five consecutive “inhibit deployment”

decisions are stored in the decision array, and that if all five decisions in the array

“are not the same, the previous decision is retransmitted to the” SIR module. Ex.

1004, 5:61-63; Ex. 1003, ¶ 27. See Ground 1, [1.5] – [1.7], supra. Accordingly,

the previous decision of “allow deployment” will be sent to the SIR module,

thereby allowing deployment, while the previous decision (the lock flag) is set to

the value of “allow deployment” (i.e. until an “inhibit deployment” decision is

received for five consecutive cycles). Ex. 1003, ¶ 27. Thus, Schousek discloses

“allowing deployment while the lock flag is set” as recited in the claim.

Claim 2

Claim Language Schousek [2.0] “The method defined in claim 1, including: establishing a second threshold of the relative weight parameter”

See, e.g., 5:36-39, Ex. 1003, ¶ 28.

[2.1] – “inhibiting deployment when the relative weight parameter is below the second threshold”

See, e.g., 5:36-39, Ex. 1003, ¶ 29, Ground 1, [1.1], [2.0], supra.


24

[2.0] “The method defined in claim 1, including: establishing a second threshold3 of the relative weight parameter”

Schousek describes that the “min infant seat threshold” is used to determine

whether the seat is empty, stating that “if the total weight parameter is less than the

minimum weight threshold for an occupied infant seat <76> it is determined that

the seat is empty[.]” Ex. 1004, 5:36-39 (emphasis added)’ Ex. 1003, ¶ 28.

Accordingly, establishing the minimum infant seat weight threshold, as taught by

Schousek, discloses “establishing a second threshold of the relative weight

parameter” as recited in the claim.


As previously discussed, the total weight parameter of Schousek is a relative

weight parameter, and the minimum infant seat weight threshold is the second

threshold. See Ground 1, [1.1], [2.0], supra. Schousek describes that “if the total

weight parameter is less than the minimum weight threshold for an occupied infant

seat <76> it is determined that the seat is empty and a decision is made to inhibit

deployment <78>.” Ex. 1004, 5:36-39 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003, ¶ 29.

3 Petitioner notes that, particularly under BRI, the claim language does not require

the second threshold to have a different value than any of the thresholds previously

recited in claim 1.


25

Accordingly, Schousek discloses “inhibiting deployment when the relative weight

parameter is below the second threshold” as recited in the claim.

Claim 3

Claim Language Schousek [3.0]“The method defined in claim 1 wherein the relative weight parameter is the total force detected by all the sensors.”

Ex. 1004, 5:30-31; Ex. 1003, ¶ 30.

[3.0] “The method defined in claim 1 wherein the relative weight parameter is the total force detected by all the sensors.”

Schousek describes “determin[ing] a force for each sensor” and “summ[ing]

to obtain a total force or weight parameter,” thereby disclosing that “the relative

weight parameter is the total force detected by all the sensors” as recited in the

claim. Ex. 1004, 5:30-31; Ex. 1003, ¶ 30.

Claim 5

Claim Language Schousek [5.0] “The method defined in claim 1 wherein the relative weight parameter is a load rating obtained by: calculating a load rating for each sensor as a function of the difference between the sensor output and a base value; and”

See, e.g., 4:51-56, Ex. 1003, ¶ 31.

[5.1] “summing the load rating for all the sensors to derive a total load rating.”

See, e.g., 4:56-60, Ex. 1003, ¶ 32.

[5.0] “The method defined in claim 1 wherein the relative weight parameter is a load rating obtained by: calculating a load rating for each sensor as a function of the difference between the sensor output and a base value; and”

Schousek teaches that the total weight parameter (the relative weight

parameter) is calculated by reading a “current voltage” produced by each sensor


26

and “subtract[ing]” the current voltage “from [a] calibration voltage” for the sensor

representing a “voltage for an empty seat condition.” Ex. 1004, 4:51-56; Ex. 1003,

¶ 31. Accordingly, calculating a difference between a current voltage and a

calibration voltage representing an empty seat for each sensor, as taught by

Schousek, discloses “calculating a load rating for each sensor as a function of the

difference between the sensor output and a base value” as recited in the claim.


Schousek describes that “[t]he difference voltage then is a function of the

pressure exerted on the sensor and is empirically related to actual occupant

weight,” and that “the sum of measured voltage differences. . . . represents

occupant weight,” thereby disclosing “summing the load rating for all the sensors

to derive a total load rating” as recited in the claim. Ex. 1004, 4:56-60; Ex. 1003, ¶

32.

Claim 9

Claim Language Schousek [9.0] “The method defined in claim 1 wherein a step of allowing deployment is a preliminary allow decision and final deployment consent is attained by long term filtering of the allow decision.”

See, e.g., Ground 1, [1.6] – [1.8], supra, Ex. 1004, 5:51-63, Ex. 1003, ¶ 33.

[9.0] “The method defined in claim 1 wherein a step of allowing deployment is a preliminary allow decision and final deployment consent is attained by long term filtering of the allow decision.”

As previously discussed, Schousek describes that a previous enablement


27

decision is used until five consecutive matching decision are stored in a decision

array. See Ground 1, [1.6] – [1.8], supra. Therefore, if the previous decision is to

inhibit deployment, each decision to allow deployment stored in the decision array

is a preliminary allow decision, because the decision to allow deployment will not

take effect until five consecution decisions to allow deployment are present in the

decision array. Ex. 1003, ¶ 33; See Ex. 1004, 5:51-63. Accordingly, Schousek

discloses that “a step of allowing deployment is a preliminary allow decision and

final deployment consent is attained by long term filtering of the allow decision” as

recited in the claim.

Claim 17

Independent claim 17 claims the system that performs the method of claim

1. The limitations in common between claims 1 and 17 include nearly identical

claim language.

The following claim chart shows the precise mapping of limitations of claim

17 to the analysis sections of claims 1.

Claim Language Corresponding Argument

[17.0] “In a vehicle restraint system having a controller for deploying air bags, means for inhibiting and allowing deployment according to whether a seat is occupied by a person of at least a minimum weight comprising”

See Ground 1, [1.0], supra

[17.1] “seat sensors responding to the weight of an occupant to produce sensor outputs”



28


[17.2] “a microprocessor coupled to the sensor outputs and programmed to inhibit and allow deployment according to sensor response and particularly programmed to”


[17.3] “determine measures represented by individual sensor outputs and calculate from the sensor outputs a relative weight parameter”


[17.4] “establish a first threshold of the relative weight parameter”


[17.5] “allow deployment when the relative weight parameter is above the first threshold”


[17.6] “establish a lock threshold above the first threshold” See Ground 1, [1.4], supra

[17.7] “set a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given time”


[17.8] “establish an unlock threshold at a level indicative of an empty seat”


[17.9] “clear the flag when the relative weight parameter is below the unlock threshold for a time”


[17.10] “allow deployment while the lock flag is set.” See Ground 1, [1.8], supra

Claim 20 – [20.0] “Means for inhibiting and allowing deployment as defined in claim 17 wherein the microprocessor is further programmed to inhibit deployment when the relative weight parameter is below a second threshold.”

See Ground 1, [2.0], supra.

Claim 21 – [21.0] “Means for inhibiting and allowing deployment as defined in claim 17 wherein the relative weight parameter is the total force detected by all the sensors.”


B. GROUND 2 – Claims 18-19 are unpatentable over Schousek in view of Blackburn under 35 U.S.C. § 103


29

1. Overview of Blackburn

Blackburn describes “[a]n occupant sensing apparatus for use in an occupant

restraint system” which “is enabled when . . . an occupant is present[.]” Ex. 1005,

Abstract. The apparatus includes “an array of sensors located” in a vehicle seat

connected to a “controller.” Id. at Abstract, 3:61-64, 6:3-4. The controller uses the

outputs of the sensors to “determine[] the occupant's position and weight and

controls deployment of the occupant restraint system in response to the determined

position and weight.” Id. at Abstract, 8:5-9.

Although Blackburn is cited on the face of the parent of the ’007 Patent (the

previously-discussed ’375 Patent), Blackburn was not used or considered by the

Office during the prosecution of the’007 Patent.

The following sections provide example disclosure from Schousek and

Blackburn that renders claims 1-3, 5, and 17-21 of the ’007 Patent obvious, as well

as explanations of how each portion of the reference applies to each limitation of

the claims.

Claim 18

Claim Language Schousek / Blackburn [18.0] “Means for inhibiting and allowing deployment as defined in claim 17 wherein: the seat comprises a resilient pad having a top surface for bearing an occupant and a bottom surface”

See, e.g., Schousek, Abstract, 5:42-50; Blackburn, Abstract, 3:44-46, 6:3-4, 14:55-15:48, FIG. 10; Ex. 1003, ¶ 34.


30

Claim Language Schousek / Blackburn [18:1] “a support mounting the bottom surface” See, e.g., Blackburn, 3:61-

4:2, FIG. 1; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 34.[18:2] “the seat sensors are arrayed on the bottom surface for sensing forces imposed by the weight of the occupant.”

See, e.g., Blackburn, 3:61-4:41, 4:51-55, 10:21-23, FIGS. 1,9,10; Ex. 1003, ¶ 35.

Claim 18 – [18.0] “Means for inhibiting and allowing deployment as defined in claim 17 wherein: the seat comprises a resilient pad having a top surface for bearing an occupant and a bottom surface;”

Blackburn describes an “occupant seat 234 with which the occupant restraint

system 220 is used is preferably a passenger seat in the vehicle” including “an

occupant position and weight sensor 260 located in the bottom cushion 262 of the

seat 234.” Ex. 1005, 9:39-43 (emphasis added). FIG. 9 of Blackburn shows the

occupant seat 234, Ex. 1003, ¶ 34:

Ex. 1005, detail of FIG. 9 (annotated)

Accordingly, the occupant seat configuration of Blackburn renders obvious

Bottom cushion 262 (resilient pad)

Weight sensor 260 in bottom surface

Occupant seat 234

Occupant seating area (top surface)


31

that “the seat comprises a resilient pad having a top surface for bearing an

occupant and a bottom surface” as recited by the claim.

Reasons to combine Schousek and Blackburn

One of skill in the art would have modified the occupant-sensing air bag

control system of Schousek to implement the seat sensor configuration of

Blackburn, because Simple substitution of one known element for another to

obtain predictable results. See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); MPEP §

2143 I(C); Ex. 1003, ¶ 38.

Blackburn describes “[a]n occupant sensing apparatus for use in an occupant

restraint system” including “an array of sensors located” in a vehicle seat

connected to a “controller.” Id. at Abstract, 10:3-6, 5:14-15, 9:41-43. This is

similar to the “air bag restraint system [that] is equipped with [a] seat occupant

sensing apparatus of Schousek. See Ex. 1004, Abstract. Blackburn teaches the

particular configuration of seat sensors described above. One of skill in the art

would have been motivated to use the techniques described in Blackburn to allow

Schousek enable airbag deployment based on more accurate weight readings from

a larger array of weight sensors. Ex. 1003, ¶ 38; see, e.g., Ex. 1005, FIG. 10. The

results of such a combination would have been predictable, because the sensor

array of Blackburn would perform the same function (detecting occupant weight)

in the same way (by measuring downward force exerted by the occupant of the


32

seat) as the seat sensor configuration described in Schousek. See Ex. 1004, 5:42-

50; Ex. 1005, 14:55-15:48; Ex. 1003, ¶ 38.

[18.1] “a support mounting the bottom surface; and”

Blackburn teaches a support mounting the bottom surface, as shown in FIG.

9, Ex. 1003, ¶ 34:


As such, Schousek in view of Blackburn teaches “a support mounting the

bottom surface,” as recited in the claim.

[18:2] “the seat sensors are arrayed on the bottom surface for sensing forces imposed by the weight of the occupant.”

FIG. 9 of Blackburn shows the occupant seat 234 with the weight sensors

260 on the bottom surface of the bottom cushion 262 (the resilient pad, as

discussed at [18.0], supra:


Weight sensors 260 in bottom surface

Occupant seat 234


Support mounting the bottom surface


33


Blackburn further describes that “the occupant position and weight sensor

260 includes an N X M array of individual position sensors 300 and individual

weight sensors 302.” Id. at 10:21-23 (emphasis added). FIG. 10 shows that the

array, Ex. 1003, ¶ 35:


Weight sensors 260 in bottom surface

Occupant seat 234



34

Ex. 1005, FIG. 10.

As such, the weight sensors of Blackburn that are arranged in an array on the

bottom surface of the seat cushion teaches that “the seat sensors are arrayed on the

bottom surface for sensing forces imposed by the weight of the occupant,” as

recited in the claim.

Claim 19

Claim Language Schousek / Blackburn [19.0] “Means for inhibiting and allowing deployment as defined in claim 17 wherein: the seat comprises a resilient pad having a top surface for bearing an occupant and a bottom surface;”


[19:1] “a support including a panel supporting the bottom surface”

See, e.g., Blackburn, 4:3-41, 4:56-58, FIG. 1, FIG. 3; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 36-37.

[19:2] “the seat sensors are arrayed in an interface defined by the bottom surface and the panel for



35

Claim Language Schousek / Blackburn sensing forces imposed by the weight of the occupant.”

[19.0] “Means for inhibiting and allowing deployment as defined in claim 17 wherein: the seat comprises a resilient pad having a top surface for bearing an occupant and a bottom surface;”


[19.1] “a support including a panel supporting the bottom surface; and”

Blackburn describes a “top cover plate” and a “bottom plate 92 [] rigidly

mounted to a substantially inflexible bottom portion of the seat[.]” Ex. 1005, 3:66-

4:2. “[T]he bottom plate 92 is rigidly secured relative to the vehicle floor[.]” Id. at

4:56-58, FIG. 3; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 36-37. FIG. 3 of Blackburn shows this

configuration, Ex. 1003, ¶ 36:

Ex. 1005 (Blackburn), FIG. 3.

Although FIG. 3 and the disclosure above describe features of the occupant

sensor 60, Blackburn describes that the sensor array 300 includes a “bottom plate

312” that is configured identically to the bottom plate 92 of the sensor 60, and that


36

supports each of the occupant sensors 300 and weight sensors in the array. See Ex.

1005, 10:30-67; Ex. 1003, ¶ 37. FIG. 11 shows the array including the bottom

plate 312:


Because the weight sensor 302 must be supported in order to deliver a

weight reading in response to the downward for of the occupant’s weight, the

bottom plate 312 supports the weight sensor 302. Ex. 1003, ¶ 37; See Ex. 1005,

11:23-35. Further, because the bottom plate 312 is rigidly secured relative to the

vehicle floor and positioned beneath the bottom surface of the seat cushion 262,

the bottom plate 312 supports the bottom surface of the seat cushion 262. Ex.

1003, ¶ 37; See Ex. 1005, 4:56-58, 10:30-67.

As such, Blackburn teaches “a support including a panel supporting the

bottom surface” as recited in the claim.

Bottom plate 312 (panel)

Weight sensor 302


37

[19.2] “the seat sensors are arrayed in an interface defined by the bottom surface and the panel for sensing forces imposed by the weight of the occupant.”


C. GROUND 3 - Claim 1-3, 5, and 17-21 are unpatentable over Blackburn under 35 U.S.C. § 103

The following sections provide example disclosure from Blackburn that

renders claims 1-3, 5, and 17-21 of the ’007 Patent obvious, as well as explanations

of how each portion of the reference applies to each limitation of the claims.

Claim 1

The following claim chart identifies example disclosure in Blackburn that

teaches the elements of claim 1:

Claim Language Blackburn [1.0]: “In a vehicle restraint system having a controller for deploying air bags and means for selectively allowing deployment according to the outputs of seat sensors responding to the weight of an occupant, a method of allowing deployment according to sensor response”

See, e.g., Abstract, 3:44-46, 6:3-4, 8:5-9, Ex. 1003 ¶ 39.


See, e.g., Abstract, 10:21-23, 10:66-11:19, FIG. 10; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42.


See, e.g.,11:22-23, 13:31-36; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43; Ground 3, [1.1], supra


See, e.g., 13:26-15:58, FIGS. 20-22, FIG. 5A; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44-45; Ground 3, [1.2], supra


38

Claim Language Blackburn [1.4]: “establishing a lock threshold above the first threshold”

See, e.g., 13:40-49, 14:55-15:48, FIG. 20; FIG. 20; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 46-47.


See, e.g.,13:59-60; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48; Ground 3, [1.4], supra


See, e.g., 13:40-49; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 49; Ground 3, [1.1], supra


See, e.g., 13:40-49, FIG. 20; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50-51; Ground 3, [1.5], supra


See, e.g., 14:61-67; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52; Ground 3, [1.4]-[1.5], supra

Claim 1 - [1.0]: “In a vehicle restraint system having a controller for deploying air bags and means for selectively allowing deployment according to the outputs of seat sensors responding to the weight of an occupant, a method of allowing deployment according to sensor response”

As a threshold matter, in the present paper, Petitioner does not assert a

position as to whether the preamble of claim 1 is limiting or non-limiting, and

explicitly reserves the right to assert either position in this or any other proceeding.

Regardless, Blackburn still teaches the limitations stated in the preamble of claim

1.

Blackburn discloses “[a]n occupant sensing apparatus for use in an occupant

restraint system[.]” Ex. 1005, Abstract (emphasis added). The apparatus includes

“an array of sensors located” in a vehicle seat connected to a “controller.” Id. at

Abstract, 3:44-46, 6:3-4, FIG. 5. The controller uses the outputs of the sensors to

“determine[] the occupant's position and weight and controls deployment of the


39

occupant restraint system in response to the determined position and weight.” Id.

at Abstract, 8:5-9 (emphasis added). Blackburn describes that the controller

“enables deployment of the airbag 26 upon the detection of both a vehicle crash

condition (with crash speed less than the predetermined value) and . . . the presence

of an occupant on the seat cushion[.]” Id. at 8:5-9 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003 ¶¶

39.

Accordingly, the air bag restraint system of Blackburn including a

microprocessor that (i) determines current occupant weight and occupant position

values from an array of seat sensors and (ii) determines whether to allow

deployment of the air bag based on the determined occupant weight and position

values discloses “[i]n a vehicle restraint system having a controller for deploying

air bags and means for selectively allowing deployment according to the outputs of

seat sensors responding to the weight of an occupant, a method of allowing

deployment according to sensor response” as recited in the claim.


Blackburn describes that “top plate 314 is made from a material that flexes

in response to an applied load or force.” Ex. 1005, 11:10-12. “The amount of

flexure at any point on the upper plate 314 is a function of the weight of the

occupant at the corresponding location on the seat cushion 262.” Id. at 11:12-15.

Blackburn describes that when downward force is applied to the sensor (e.g., when


40

an occupant sits in the seat), “a contact arm 334 in the sensor contacts” a force

sensing film within the sensor, causing an “output signal” of the sensor to “var[y]

as a function of the occupant's weight” on the sensor. Id. at 11:15-18; Ex. 1003, ¶

40.

Blackburn describes including “an N X M array of individual position

sensors 300 and individual weight sensors 302” within a vehicle seat, as shown in

FIG. 10.; Ex. 1004, 10:21-23, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41:

Ex. 1005, FIG. 10 (annotated)

Blackburn teaches that “[b]y monitoring the sensors 302” in the sensor array

“the weight of the occupant on the seat 234 can be determined[.]” Id. at 11:18-19

(emphasis added). This determined weight is a relative weight parameter because

it represents a measurement of weight calculated from the output of multiple

Position sensor (P)

Weight sensor (W)

Connection to controller


41

sensors in the array. See id.; Ex. 1003, ¶ 42.

Accordingly, to the extent that a meaning can be ascribed to the term

“relative weight parameter,” determining the weight of a seat occupant based on

the outputs of weight sensors in a sensor array, as taught by Blackburn, discloses

“determining measures represented by individual sensor outputs and calculating

from the sensor outputs a relative weight parameter,” as recited in the claim.


As previously discussed, the weight value determined from the array of

weight sensors in Blackburn teaches a relative weight parameter. See Ground 3,

[1.1], supra. Blackburn describes that “the sensor outputs are scanned by the

microcontroller” to determine “whether an object is present in the seat.” Ex. 1005,

13:31-33 (emphasis added). Blackburn states that “any of the sensors” in the array

“can be used to determine if an occupant is present.” Id. at 13:34-36 (emphasis

added). Blackburn further teaches that each sensor is “designed so that a

predetermined amount of weight must first be applied” to the sensor before a

weight value is produced.” Id. at 11:22-25 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003, ¶ 43.

Accordingly, establishing a weight threshold above which a weight value

produced by the sensor array indicates a vehicle seat is occupied, as taught by

Blackburn, discloses “establishing a first threshold of the relative weight

parameter” as recited in the claim.


42


Blackburn describes a process for determining whether the air bag

deployment is enabled (allowed). See Ex. 1005, 13:26-15:58, FIGS. 20-22; Ex.

1003, ¶ 44. The process includes making “a determination as to whether an object

is present in the seat,” which, as discussed above, includes comparing the

determined weight from the sensors to the first threshold. Ex. 1005, 13:32-34; see

Ground 3, [1.2], supra; Ex. 1003, ¶ 44. Blackburn describes that “the airbag is

kept in an enabled condition” in cases where the weight value is above the first

threshold (i.e., the weight sensors indicate the seat is occupied). Ex. 1005, 13:59-

60; Ex. 1003, ¶ 44. FIG. 20 from Blackburn shows this process:


Blackburn describes that the process then determines whether and how to

deploy the airbag based on the occupant’s determined weight and position in the

Determine that weight is above first threshold

Allow deployment


43

seat. See Ex. 1005, 13:67-15:48. For example, if air bag deployment is enabled

and the occupant’s weight is determined to be “approximately [that] of a

theoretical 3 year old,” the air bag is deployed and “75% of all gas discharged by

one gas source is dumped via its associated vent valve[.]” Ex. 1005, 14:60-67; Ex.

1003, ¶ 45.

Accordingly, enabling air bag deployment when the weight value from the

weight sensors indicates the seat is occupied, as taught by Blackburn, discloses

“allowing deployment when the relative weight parameter is above the first

threshold” as recited in the claim.


Blackburn renders obvious establishing a lock threshold above the first

threshold. Blackburn describes that if the seat is determined to be unoccupied, “a

value N,” which is initialized to zero at the beginning of the process, “is set equal

to N + 1” and “a determination is made as to whether N is equal to 10.” Ex. 1005,

13:40-45; Ex. 1003, ¶ 46. If N is not equal to 10, “the process then loops back”

and the weight values from the sensor array are read again. Ex. 1005, 13:45-46;

Ex. 1003, ¶ 46. Once the process has repeated 10 times and the value of N equals

10, “the airbag is disabled.” Ex. 1005, 13:47-49; Ex. 1003, ¶ 46. The weight

threshold that is used to determine whether the seat is occupied is thus a lock

threshold, because air bag deployment is enabled (allowed) for a period of time


44

(e.g., 10 cycles) once the weight threshold is exceeded. See Ex. 1005, 13:40-48;

Ex. 1003, ¶ 46. FIG. 20 from Blackburn shows this process:

Ex. 1005, FIG. 20 (annotated)

Establishing the lock threshold as a value above the first threshold would

have been obvious because controlling deployment of air bag systems according to

different weight thresholds was well-known in the art at the time of the ’007

Patent. Ex. 1003, ¶ 47; see, e.g., Ex. 1004, 5:42-50; Ex. 1005, 14:55-15:48.

Further, the desirability of implementing a locking behavior of air bag deployment,

such as that taught by Blackburn, at a weight level above that indicative of an

occupied was known in the art. Ex. 1003, ¶ 47; see, e.g., Ex. 1004, 2:31-34.

Accordingly, establishing a lock threshold above which a decision to enable

airbag deployment is persistent for a period of time, as taught by Blackburn,

Determine whether weight is above lock threshold

Keep airbag enabled until 10 readings of weight below lock threshold


45

renders obvious “establishing a lock threshold above the first threshold” as recited

in the claim.


As discussed above, Blackburn describes that a decision to keep the airbag

enabled is made when the weight value from the sensors is above the lock

threshold. See Ground 3, [1.4], supra. This airbag enablement decision teaches a

lock flag because it indicates that deployment has been allowed for a time, and

because it persists for a time, as discussed in greater detail below. See Ex. 1005,

13:59-60; Ex. 1003, ¶ 48.

Accordingly, making the decision to keep the airbag enabled based on a

detected occupant, as taught by Blackburn, discloses “setting a lock flag when the

relative weight parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been

allowed for a given time” as recited in the claim.


As previously discussed, Blackburn teaches a weight threshold associated

with the weight sensors used to determine whether the seat is occupied (a first

threshold). See Ground 3, [1.1], supra. If the weight value from the sensors is

below this weight threshold, it indicates that the seat is empty. See Ex. 1005,

13:40-49 Ex. 1003, ¶ 49.

Accordingly, the weight threshold of Blackburn that indicates that the seat is


46

unoccupied discloses “establishing an unlock threshold at a level indicative of an

empty seat” as recited in the claim.

[1.7]: “clearing the flag4 when the relative weight parameter is below the unlock threshold for a time”

Blackburn describes that if the seat is determined to be unoccupied, “a value

N,” which is initialized to zero at the beginning of the process, “is set equal to N +

1” and “a determination is made as to whether N is equal to 10.” Ex. 1005, 13:40-

45; Ex. 1003, ¶ 50. If N is not equal to 10, “the process then loops back” and the

weight values from the sensor array are read again. Ex. 1005, 13:45-46; Ex. 1003,

¶ 50. Once the process has repeated 10 times and the value of N equals 10, “the

airbag is disabled.” Ex. 1005, 13:47-49 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003, ¶ 50. FIG. 20

from Blackburn shows this process:

4 For the purposes of the present analysis, Petitioner interprets this recitation of

“the flag” to mean the previously recited “lock flag,” but reserves the right to argue

that this recitation of “the flag” is indefinite in this or other proceedings.


47


As previously described, the decision to keep the airbag enabled is a lock

flag, and thus disabling the air bag includes clearing the lock flag. See Ground 3,

[1.5], supra; Ex. 1003, ¶ 51.

Accordingly, clearing the decision to keep the airbag enabled after 10

consecutive decisions to disable the air bag, as taught by Blackburn , teaches

“clearing the flag when the relative weight parameter is below the unlock threshold

for a time” as recited in the claim.


As discussed above, Blackburn describes that a decision to keep the airbag

enabled is made when the weight value from the sensors is above the lock

threshold, and that this airbag enablement decision teaches a lock flag. See Ground




48

3, [1.4] – [1.5], supra. Blackburn further describes that deployment of the airbag is

allowed when the decision to keep the airbag has been made (i.e., when the lock

flag is set). For example, if air bag deployment is enabled and the occupant’s

weight is determined to be “approximately [that] of a theoretical 3 year old,” the

air bag is deployed and “75% of all gas discharged by one gas source is dumped

via its associated vent valve[.]” Ex. 1005, 14:61-67; Ex. 1003, ¶ 52.

Accordingly, allowing deployment when the decision to enable to air bag

has been made, as taught by Blackburn, discloses “allowing deployment while the

lock flag is set” as recited in the claim.

Claim 2

Claim Language Blackburn [2.0] “The method defined in claim 1, including: establishing a second threshold of the relative weight parameter”

See, e.g., Ground 3, [1.6], supra


See, e.g., 13:47-49, FIG. 20, Ex. 1003, ¶ XX.

Claim 2 – [2.0] “The method defined in claim 1, including: establishing a second threshold5 of the relative weight parameter”

As previously described, Blackburn teaches establishing a weight threshold

indicative of an empty seat, thereby disclosing “establishing a second threshold of

5 Petitioner notes that the claim language does not require the second threshold to

have a different value than any of the thresholds previously recited in claim 1.


49

the relative weight parameter” as recited in the claim. See Ground 3, [1.6], supra.


As previously discussed, the weight parameter of Blackburn determined

from the weight sensors is a relative weight parameter, and the weight threshold

indicative of an empty seat is the second threshold. See Ground 3, [1.1], [2.0],

supra. Blackburn further describes that if the weight parameter is below the

weight threshold indicative of an empty seat, “the airbag is disabled.” Ex. 1005,

13:47-49; Ex. 1003, ¶ XX. FIG. 20 of Blackburn shows this process:


Accordingly, Blackburn discloses “inhibiting deployment when the relative

weight parameter is below the second threshold” as recited in the claim.

Determine that weight is below second threshold

Disable airbag if determined weight is below second threshold


50

Claim 3

Claim Language Blackburn [3.0] “The method defined in claim 1 wherein the relative weight parameter is the total force detected by all the sensors.”

See, e.g., 11:15-19; Ex. 1003, ¶ XX

Claim 3 – [3.0] “The method defined in claim 1 wherein the relative weight parameter is the total force detected by all the sensors.”

Blackburn teaches that “[b]y monitoring the sensors 302” in the sensor array

“the weight of the occupant on the seat 234 can be determined[.]” Id. at 11:18-19

(emphasis added). “[T]he output signal” of each sensor “varies as a function of the

occupant's weight at that location[.]” Ex. 1005, 11:15-18 (emphasis added). The

signal from each sensor, thus, represents the amount of downward force on the

particular sensor, which is the amount of the occupant’s weight that is supported

by the portion of the seat containing the sensor. See id.; Ex. 1003, ¶ XX.

Therefore, in order to determine the total weight of the occupant, as taught by

Blackburn, the weights measured by the individual sensors must be summed. Ex.

1003, ¶ XX. Accordingly, Blackburn discloses “the relative weight parameter is

the total force detected by all the sensors” as recited in the claim.

Claim 5

Claim Language Blackburn [5.0] “The method defined in claim 1 wherein the relative weight parameter is a load rating obtained by: calculating a load rating for each sensor as a function of the difference between the sensor output and a base value; and”

See, e.g., 11:2-18, Ex. 1003, ¶ XX.


51

Claim Language Blackburn [5.1] “summing the load rating for all the sensors to derive a total load rating.”

See, e.g., Ground 3, [3.0], supra.

[5.0] “The method defined in claim 1 wherein the relative weight parameter is a load rating obtained by: calculating a load rating for each sensor as a function of the difference between the sensor output and a base value; and”

Blackburn teaches that each weight sensor “has a predetermined amount of

resistance seen across its connection terminals” and that “the resistance across the

terminals varies inversely with applied force.” Ex. 1005, 11:2-5 (emphasis added).

Blackburn further describes that “[w]hen a contact arm 334 contacts its associated

film 330” within the sensor, “the output signal” of the sensor “varies as a function

of the occupant's weight at that location[.]” Ex. 1005, 11:15-18 (emphasis added).

The occupant’s weight produced by the sensor, therefore, is a function of the

difference in the sensor’s resistance from its base value. Ex. 1003, ¶ XX; see Ex.

1005, 11:2-18. Accordingly, Blackburn discloses “calculating a load rating for

each sensor as a function of the difference between the sensor output and a base

value” as recited in the claim.



Claim 17

Independent claim 17 claims the system that performs the method of claim

1. The limitations in common between claims 1 and 17 include nearly identical


52

claim language.

The following claim chart shows the precise mapping of limitations of claim

17 to the analysis sections of claims 1.


[17.0] “In a vehicle restraint system having a controller for deploying air bags, means for inhibiting and allowing deployment according to whether a seat is occupied by a person of at least a minimum weight comprising”


[17.1] “seat sensors responding to the weight of an occupant to produce sensor outputs”


[17.2] “a microprocessor coupled to the sensor outputs and programmed to inhibit and allow deployment according to sensor response and particularly programmed to”


[17.3] “determine measures represented by individual sensor outputs and calculate from the sensor outputs a relative weight parameter”


[17.4] “establish a first threshold of the relative weight parameter”


[17.5] “allow deployment when the relative weight parameter is above the first threshold”


[17.6] “establish a lock threshold above the first threshold” See Ground 3, [1.4], supra

[17.7] “set a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given time”


[17.8] “establish an unlock threshold at a level indicative of an empty seat”


[17.9] “clear the flag when the relative weight parameter is below the unlock threshold for a time”


[17.10] “allow deployment while the lock flag is set.” See Ground 3, [1.8], supra

Claim 18 – [18.0] “Means for inhibiting and allowing deployment as defined in claim 17 wherein: the seat comprises a resilient pad having a top surface for bearing an occupant and a bottom surface;”



53

[18.1] “a support mounting the bottom surface; and”


[18.2] “the seat sensors are arrayed on the bottom surface for sensing forces imposed by the weight of the occupant.”


Claim 19 – [19:0] “Means for inhibiting and allowing deployment as defined in claim 17 wherein: the seat comprises a resilient pad having a top surface for bearing an occupant and a bottom surface;”


[19:1] “a support including a panel supporting the bottom surface; and”


[19:2] “the seat sensors are arrayed in an interface defined by the bottom surface and the panel for sensing forces imposed by the weight of the occupant.”


Claim 20 – [20:0] “Means for inhibiting and allowing deployment as defined in claim 17 wherein the microprocessor is further programmed to inhibit deployment when the relative weight parameter is below a second threshold.”


Claim 21 – [21:0] “Means for inhibiting and allowing deployment as defined in claim 17 wherein the relative weight parameter is the total force detected by all the sensors.”


D. GROUND 4 – Claim 1-3, 5, and 17-21 are unpatentable over Blackburn in view of Schousek under 35 U.S.C. § 103

The following sections provide example disclosure from Blackburn and


54

Schousek that renders claims 1-3, 5, and 17-21 of the ’007 Patent obvious, as well

as explanations of how each portion of the reference applies to each limitation of

the claims.

Claim Language Blackburn/Schousek [1.0]: “In a vehicle restraint system having a controller for deploying air bags and means for selectively allowing deployment according to the outputs of seat sensors responding to the weight of an occupant, a method of allowing deployment according to sensor response”









See, e.g., Ground 1, [1.1], [1.4], supra; Blackburn, 13:40-49, 14:55-15:48, FIG. 20; Schousek, Abstract, 2:31-34, 5:42-50; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ XX









[1.0]: “In a vehicle restraint system having a controller for deploying air bags and means for selectively allowing deployment according to the outputs of seat sensors responding to the weight of an occupant, a method of allowing deployment according to sensor response”


55









Blackburn in view of Schousek renders obvious establishing a lock threshold

above the first threshold. Blackburn describes that if the seat is determined to be

unoccupied, “a value N,” which is initialized to zero at the beginning of the

process, “is set equal to N + 1” and “a determination is made as to whether N is

equal to 10.” Ex. 1005, 13:40-45; Ex. 1003, ¶ XX. If N is not equal to 10, “the

process then loops back” and the weight values from the sensor array are read

again. Ex. 1005, 13:45-46; Ex. 1003, ¶ XX. Once the process has repeated 10

times and the value of N equals 10, “the airbag is disabled.” Ex. 1005, 13:47-49;

Ex. 1003, ¶ XX. The weight threshold that is used to determine whether the seat is

occupied is thus a lock threshold, because air bag deployment is enabled (allowed)

for a period of time (e.g., 10 cycles) once the weight threshold is exceeded. See

Ex. 1005, 13:40-48; Ex. 1003, ¶ XX. FIG. 20 from Blackburn shows this process:


56

Schousek teaches setting the lock threshold to a value above the first

threshold. As previously described at Ground 1, [1.4], Schousek describes a

“maximum infant seat weight” representing the “maximum weight of an occupied

infant seat (50 pounds),” which is greater than a minimum infant seat weight

threshold (the first threshold, see Ground 1, [1.1], supra), described by Schousek

as “about 10 pounds.” Ex. 1004, 2:31-34; Ex. 1003, ¶ XX. It would have been

obvious to one of skill in the art to modify the value of the lock threshold taught by

Blackburn to be different than the first threshold in view of these teachings of

Schousek. Ex. 1003, ¶ XX.

Accordingly, establishing a lock threshold above which a decision to enable

airbag deployment is persistent for a period of time, as taught by Blackburn,

renders obvious “establishing a lock threshold above the first threshold” as recited




57

in the claim.

Reasons to combine Blackburn and Schousek

One of skill in the art would have modified the occupant-sensing air bag

control system of Blackburn to use different values for the lock threshold and

deployment (first) threshold, as taught by Schousek, because the combination

amounts to the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same

way. See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); MPEP § 2143 I(C).

Schousek describes an “air bag restraint system [that] is equipped with [a]

seat occupant sensing apparatus,” which is similar to the airbag restraint system of

Blackburn, which also senses whether a seat is occupied and controls the operation

of an air bag accordingly. See Ex. 1004, Abstract; Ground 3, [1.0], supra.

Schousek teaches that air bag enablement and “locking” a particular enablement

decision may be initiated upon detecting of different weight values detected in the

vehicle seat. Ex. 1004, 2:31-34. One of skill in the art would have been motivated

to use the techniques described in Schousek to allow Blackburn to use different

weight threshold values for the first and lock thresholds because controlling

deployment of air bag systems according to different weight thresholds was well-

known in the art at the time of the ’007 Patent. Ex. 1003, ¶ XX; see, e.g., Ex.

1004, 5:42-50; Ex. 1005, 14:55-15:48. Further, the desirability initiating a locking

behavior of air bag deployment, such as that taught by Blackburn, at a weight level


58

above that indicative of an occupied was known in the art. Ex. 1003, ¶ XX; see,

e.g., Ex. 1004, 2:31-34. The results of such a combination would have been

predictable, because the setting different weight thresholds in this way was well

known to those of skill in the art. See Ex. 1004, 5:42-50; Ex. 1005, 14:55-15:48;

Ex. 1003, ¶ XX.









Claims 2, 3, 5, and 17-21

The following table identifies portions of the arguments previously

presented that apply to claims 2, 3, 5, and 17-21.

Claim Corresponding Argument 2 See Ground 3, Claim 2, supra 3 See Ground 3, Claim 3, supra 5 See Ground 3, Claim 5, supra 17 See Ground 4, [1.4], Ground 3, Claim 17, supra


59

18 See Ground 2, Claim 18, supra 19 See Ground 2, Claim 19, supra 20 See Ground 3, Claim 2, supra 21 See Ground 3, Claim 3, supra

VI. CONCLUSION

The cited prior art reference(s) identified in this Petition contain pertinent

technological teachings (both cited and uncited), either explicitly or inherently

disclosed, which were not previously considered in the manner presented herein, or

relied upon on the record during original examination of the ’007 Patent. In sum,

these references provide new, non-cumulative technological teachings which

indicate a reasonable likelihood of success as to Petitioner’s assertion that the

Challenged Claims of the ’007 Patent are not patentable pursuant to the grounds

presented in this Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests institution

of an IPR for those claims of the ’007 Patent for each of the grounds presented

herein.


60

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April 3, 2015 /Joshua A. Griswold/

Joshua A. Griswold, Reg. No. 46,310 Fish & Richardson P.C. 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 T: 214-292-4034 F: (877) 769-7945 Attorneys for Petitioner


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq. and 42.105(b), the undersigned

certifies that on April 3, 2015, a complete and entire copy of this Petition for Inter

Partes Review and all supporting exhibits were provided by email to the Patent

Owner by serving the correspondence address of record as follows:

Ascenda Law Group, PC

333 W San Carlos St. Suite 200

San Jose CA 95110 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

Tarek Fahmi of the Ascenda firm consented to electronic service.

/Jessica K. Detko/ Jessica K. Detko Fish & Richardson P.C. 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-2516

Date post:	05-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	doancong
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK...

Documents