`Filed on behalf of: Hyundai Motor Company
`By:
`Edward J. Naidich
`Christopher M. Kurpinski
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
` Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Ave.
`Washington, DC 20001
`Phone: 202-408-4000
`
`Fax: 202-408-4400
`E-mail: ed.naidich@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Patent 8,235,416
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PRIYA PRASAD, PH.D
`
`1
`
`Hyundai Exhibit 1014
`
`Page 1 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I, Priya Prasad, Ph.D., have been retained in my personal capacity by
`
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett, and Dunner, LLC as an expert for
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Motor Company (“Petitioner”). I submit the following
`
`Declaration pertaining to the Petition for Inter Partes Review of United States
`
`Patent No. 8,235,416 (“the ’416 Patent”). In particular, my Declaration provides an
`
`explanation of the reasons why all of the claims of the ’416 patent are unpatentable
`
`in view of the discussed prior art.
`
`2.
`
`As explained in this declaration, the technology disclosed and claimed
`
`by the ’416 patent relates to a method and apparatus for determining the weight of
`
`an occupying item or passenger of a vehicle seat.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`I earned a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Bihar College of
`3.
`
`Engineering in 1965, an MS in Mechanical Engineering from Wayne State
`
`University in 1968, and a Ph.D. in Bio-Mechanics from Wayne State University in
`
`1973. I taught mechanics at Lawrence Institute of Technology for 7 years from
`
`1976-1983.
`
`4.
`
`I worked at Ford Motor Company from 1973 to July 2008, in the areas
`
`of occupant protection and vehicle safety, as discussed in detail in the attached CV.
`
`As a Technical Fellow in Safety Research and Development (1994 - 2008), I
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`reported directly to the Chief Technical Officer of the Company and the Vice-
`
`President of Research and Advanced Engineering. I have also received Ford Motor
`
`Company’s highest scientific prize, the Henry Ford Technology Award, twice. I
`
`was responsible for directing the research, development and implementation of
`
`active and passive safety technologies worldwide. I was a key player in the
`
`development of restraint system technologies that help protect vehicle occupants in
`
`various crash modes, CAE technologies for crashworthiness, and technologies that
`
`further improve compatibility between heavier and lighter vehicles. I was a leader
`
`in designing de-powered airbags as well as side airbags that provide protection to
`
`the head and chest in side impacts. I developed a deploying door-trim system that
`
`enhances protection in side impacts. Now in place in many Ford vehicles, the
`
`system has earned four US patents.
`
`5.
`
`I am the author of over 100 articles related to biomechanics and
`
`automobile safety, as discussed in detail in the attached CV. I am a listed inventor
`
`on 7 patents covering side impact restraint, external airbags and accident avoidance
`
`technologies.
`
`6. My awards include the National Highway Safety Administration
`
`(NHTSA) Engineering Excellence Award for Safety in 1991 and 2009 and the US
`
`Department of Transportation National Award for the Advancement of Motor
`
`Vehicle Research and Development in 1994. I am the first person honored by the
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`U.S. Department of Transportation for contributions to the Advancement of Motor
`
`Vehicle Research and Development. I am also a member of the National Academy
`
`of Engineering, a Fellow member of the Society of Automotive Engineers and a
`
`Fellow of the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering.
`
`Additional awards are listed in my
`
`attached CV.
`7. My leadership positions on national and international forums include
`
`advising governments, such as Canada, Australia and the U.S., on the development
`
`of relevant crash regulations, including the 1998 modification of FMVSS208,
`
`which succeeded in minimizing unintended side effects of first generation airbags
`
`and as Chairman and Member of the Biomechanics and Crashworthiness Sub-
`
`Committee of the Motor Vehicle Safety Research Advisory Committee of the
`
`NHTSA. Additional leadership positions are listed in my attached CV.
`
`8.
`
`In 2008, I founded Prasad Consulting LLC, a consulting company that
`
`consults in the areas of biomechanics and automobile safety.
`
`9.
`
`Based on my education, training, knowledge of the literature, and
`
`professional experience, I believe I am fully competent to opine regarding the
`
`subject matter described and claimed in the ’416 Patent.
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
` In forming the opinions expressed in this declaration, I have relied on
`10.
`
`my own experience and have considered the following materials:
`
`(1) U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416 (Ex 1001)
`
`(2)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416 (Ex 1002)
`
`(3) DE 38 09 074 C2 (DE ’074) (Ex 1003)
`
`(4)
`
`(5)
`
`Protze et al. (US 4,285,545) (Ex 1004)
`
`JP 3-19929 U (Ex 1005)
`
`(6) Mehney et al. (US 6,039,344) (Ex 1006)
`
`(7)
`
`JP 9-150662 A (Ex 1007)
`
`(8) U.S. application No. 08/474,783, filed June 7, 1995, which issued as
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,707 (Ex 1008)
`
`(9) Kargol et al. (US 5,707,035) (Ex 1009)
`
`(10) Schousek (US 5,474,327) (Ex 1010)
`
`(11) U.S. application No. 08/970,822, filed November 14, 1997, which
`
`issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,081,757 (Ex 1011)
`
`(12) U.S. application No. 09/128,490, filed August 4, 1998, which issued
`
`as U.S. Pat. No. 6,078,854 (Ex 1012)
`
`(13) U.S. application No. 09/193,209, filed November 17, 1998, which
`
`issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,242,701 (Ex 1013)
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`IV. ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable if it is anticipated or obvious.
`11.
`
`12.
`
`I understand that a claim is anticipated if every element of the claim is
`
`disclosed expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.
`
`13.
`
`I further understand that a claim is obvious if a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art, at the time the invention was made, would have found it
`
`obvious. In analyzing obviousness, I understand that it is important to understand
`
`the scope of the claims, the level of skill in the relevant art, the scope and content
`
`of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims, and any
`
`secondary considerations. I understand that secondary considerations can include
`
`evidence of commercial success caused by an invention, evidence of a long-felt
`
`need that was solved by an invention, evidence that others copied an invention, or
`
`evidence that an invention achieved a surprising result. I am not aware of any
`
`secondary considerations, but I reserve the right to consider such evidence and
`
`supplement my declaration if necessary.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that claims in an inter partes review are given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation that is consistent with the patent specification.
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the words of the claim are to be given
`
`their plain and ordinary meaning unless that meaning is inconsistent with the
`
`specification. Unless indicated otherwise, I have used the plain and ordinary
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`meaning of the claim words in connection with the opinions expressed in this
`
`Declaration.
`
`V. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
`I understand that a claim is supported by an earlier filed patent
`15.
`
`application only if a person of ordinary skill would understand from reviewing the
`
`earlier filed application (including the specification, claims, and drawings) that the
`
`inventor(s) possessed the claimed invention.
`
`VI. ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`16. A person of ordinary skill in this art would have been an electrical or
`
`mechanical engineer, having the equivalent of a post-graduate education, such as a
`
`master’s degree or equivalent education in electrical or mechanical engineering,
`
`and several years of experience in the design of vehicle occupant restraint control
`
`systems.
`
`VII. EXPLANATION OF THE ’416 PATENT
`17. The ’416 patent is directed to a vehicle seat including an occupant
`
`sensor system with at least one force sensing device attached to the seat’s support
`
`member.
`
`18. As shown in FIG. 20 of the ’416 patent (reproduced below), a vehicle
`
`seat 191 is attached to a pair of slide mechanisms 192 via respective support
`
`members 193. A strain gage transducer 180 is mounted on one of the support
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`members 193. When an occupying item (e.g., an occupant or inanimate object) is
`
`provided on the seat, the support members 193 are deformed or strained. This
`
`strain is measured by transducer 180 to enable a determination of the weight of the
`
`item occupying the seat. See Ex 1001, ’416 patent at col. 44 l. 54-col. 45 l. 20.
`
`19. The structure of the seat described in the ’416 patent is “[a] typical
`
`manually controlled seat structure . . . [as] described in U.S. Patent No. 4,285,545”
`
`(i.e., Protze). See Ex 1001, ’416 Patent at col. 44 ll. 54-59. The Protze patent is
`
`mentioned in the ’416 patent, but it was not considered by the Examiner. FIG. 20
`
`of the ’416 patent and FIG. 4 of the ’545 patent are reproduced below. As shown
`
`by the comparison below, the structures of the vehicle seats in the two patents are
`
`virtually identical.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`VIII. EFFECTIVE FILING DATE
`I was asked to review U.S. application No. 08/474,783, filed June 7,
`20.
`
`1995, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,707 (Ex 1008), U.S. application No.
`
`08/970,822, filed November 14, 1997, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,081,757 (Ex
`
`1011), U.S. application No. 09/128,490, filed August 4, 1998, which issued as U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 6,078,854 (Ex 1012), and U.S. application No. 09/193,209, filed
`
`November 17, 1998, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,242,701 (Ex 2013), to
`
`determine whether any of these applications provide a written description for the
`
`claims of the ’416 patent.
`
`21. Based on my review of the above applications, the features of “a
`
`support member coupled to the slide mechanism and to the bottom of the portion
`
`of the seat” in combination with “at least one force sensing device attached to the
`
`support member” are not present in any of the applications except U.S. application
`
`No. 09/193,209, filed November 17, 1998.
`
`22.
`
` FIG. 2 of the ’783 application (reproduced below, corresponding to
`
`FIG. 18 of the ’416 patent) shows three seat supports 202, 204, 210 and “placing
`
`strain gages on one or more of the seat supports.” See Ex 1008, the ’783
`
`application at page 12 l. 17-page 13 l. 13. The three seat supports shown in this
`
`embodiment, however, are not “coupled to the slide mechanism and to the bottom
`
`of the seat.” Instead, this embodiment shows that supports 202, 204, 210 are all
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`provided within the seat itself and the ’783 application teaches that the “sensors are
`
`mounted within the seat in a variety of ways.” See Ex 1008, the ’783 application at
`
`page 12 1.18.
`
`
`23. The supports 202, 204, 210 are all within the seat itself, and they are
`
`not “coupled to the slide mechanism and to the bottom portion of the seat”, as
`
`required by the ’416 patent claims. Thus, the ’783 application cannot be considered
`
`as disclosing the recited “support member coupled to the slide mechanism and to
`
`the bottom portion of the seat” in combination with “at least one force sensing
`
`device attached to the support member.”
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`IX. SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART
`24. The following is a brief summary of the prior art that I have been
`
`asked to review.
`
`A. DE ’074
` As shown in FIG. 1 of DE ’074 (reproduced below), DE ’074
`25.
`
`describes a vehicle 1 including a seat 2 (i.e., bottom portion) and a seat back 3,
`
`which is at an angle to the seat 2. The support for the vehicle seat includes guide
`
`rails 8 that are fastened to the vehicle floor 5 and runners 7, which are guided along
`
`the guide rails 8 to adjust the position of the seat. See Ex 1003, DE ’074 at page 2
`
`ll. 6-11.
`
`26. The guide rails 8 (i.e., track) are mounted to the vehicle floor See Ex
`
`
`
`1003, DE ’074 at page 2 ll. 7-11. Each of the runners 7 is connected to the seat 2
`
`and has a force sensor 11, 12 mounted on it. See Ex 1003, DE ’074 at page 2 ll. 7-
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`11. The runner 7 corresponds to the “support member” of claim 1. That is, each
`
`runner (“support member”) has “at least one force sensing device attached to” it,
`
`and is “coupled to ... the bottom portion of “ the seat 2. DE ’074 teaches allowing
`
`the seat and the runners 7 to slide with respect to the guide rails 8 (i.e., track ) (see
`
`Ex 1003, DE ’074 at page 2 ll. 6-8) but is silent as to the exact sliding structure not
`
`unlike the ’416 patent. Because DE ’074’s runner 7 slides with respect to the track
`
`8, DE ’074 has a “slide mechanism configured to slide with respect to the track”.
`
`This slide mechanism is, in turn, coupled to the runner 7 (i.e., support member),
`
`and the runner 7 is also coupled to the bottom of the seat 2. See Ex 1003, DE ’074
`
`at page 2 ll. 6-8.
`
`27. DE ’074 also describes a control circuit 14 that determines whether
`
`the occupant is at a forward or normal/rearward position (i.e., classified as front or
`
`normal/rearward) by comparing forces F1, F2 detected by force sensors 11, 12
`
`mounted on the runners 7 at locations that are approximately the same distance
`
`from the center of gravity of the seat. The deployment of a collision protection
`
`cushion 20 is controlled based on this classification. See Ex 1003, DE ’074 at page
`
`2 ll. 11-17 & 36-40.
`
`28. DE ’074 discloses that the collision protection cushion is deployed or
`
`suppressed depending on the occupant’s classification. See Ex 1003, DE ’074 at
`
`page 2 ll. 36-40. DE ’074 discloses that the airbag is suppressed when the total
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`weight is less than a constant value (i.e., F1 + F2 < X), indicating that only a small
`
`additional weight (for example, a piece of luggage) is placed on the vehicle seat.
`
`See Ex 1003, DE ’074, page 2 ll. 31-40. “[I]f the seat is unoccupied, the collision
`
`protection cushion is not activated, making it available for potential later use,” and
`
`this suppression “avoids damage to the housing and surrounding parts, such as the
`
`dashboard, normally caused by the explosive inflation.” See Ex 1003, DE ’074,
`
`page 1 ll. 40-44.
`
`B. Conventional Strain Gages
`29. The ’416 patent itself refers to strain gages as a “conventional” force
`
`measuring device. See Ex 1001, ’416 Patent at col. 43 ll. 7-8.
`
`30. At the time of the ’416 patent, it was well known to use strain gauges
`
`to determine a load applied to structural element. Strain gauges were widely used
`
`because they are a precise and inexpensive way to determine a load. In fact, the
`
`’416 patent itself refers to strain gages as a “conventional” force measuring device.
`
`Protze
`
`C.
`31. Protze at FIGs. 1 and 6 (reproduced below along with enlarged partial
`
`views thereof) discloses a passenger seat for a motor vehicle including a seat 2
`
`with a frame 3 and a backrest 4 which is pivotable at an angle. See Ex 1004, Protze
`
`at col. 3 ll. 32-35. The seat is supported on a pair of rear side legs 11 in tracks 12
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`fastened to the floor 1a of the vehicle such that the seat can move forward or
`
`backward relative to the floor. See Ex 1004, Protze at col. 4 ll. 16-21 & ll. 39-41.
`
`32. As shown in FIG. 1 of Protze, the leg 11 (i.e., support member) is
`
`coupled to an unlabeled slider or “slide mechanism” that slides with respect to the
`
`track 12 when the seat 2 slides forward (see dashed lines of slider and leg 11 at a
`
`forward position in FIG. 1 and slider in FIG. 6 below). See Ex 1004, Protze at col.
`
`4 ll. 6-21. As shown in the figures, Protze’s support member 11 is coupled to both
`
`the structure for sliding in rails and to the bottom of the seat.
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`
`
`
`D.
`33.
`
`JP ’929
`
`JP ’929 discloses the use of strain gages in the support structure of a
`
`seat. JP ’929 discloses elastic bodies 9 of load detectors 6 attached to a lower
`
`portion of an automobile driver’s seat 26. See Ex 1005, JP ’929 at page 9 ll. 18-21.
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`Each load detector has strain gages bonded on upper and lower surfaces of the
`
`elastic bodies 9. See Ex 1005, JP ’929 at page 6 ll. 15-24.
`
`E. Kargol
`34. Kargol at FIGs. 3 and 5 (reproduced below) discloses a vehicle seat
`
`adjuster system including an upper track 21 that slides with respect to a lower track
`
`20. The upper track 21 is coupled to the seat bottom via holes in the upright portion
`
`61 and via flange 62 (see Ex 1009, Kargol at col. 6 ll. 53-64), and as such
`
`corresponds to the recited “support member.”
`
`
`35. Front and rear bearing and retainer assemblies 23, 24 are
`
`interposed between the upper 21 and lower 20 tracks and are mounted
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`respectively at front and rear ends of the upper track 21. See Ex 1009, Kargol
`
`at col. 4 l. 63-col. 5 l. 13; col. 7 ll. 22-29. Each of the bearing and retainer
`
`assemblies accommodates a roller bearing 70 and ball bearings 71. See Ex
`
`1009, Kargol at col. 7 ll. 22-29. This allows “[t]he weight of the vehicle seat
`
`and its occupant to be carried by the roller bearings, while the ball bearings
`
`provide a smooth, precise guide between the moving upper track and the
`
`lower track that is anchored to the vehicle’s frame.” See Ex 1009, Kargol at
`
`col. 2 ll. 40-43. The front and rear bearing and retainer assemblies 23, 24 are
`
`coupled to the upper track 21 and slide with respect to the lower track 22 and
`
`as such correspond to the recited “slide mechanism.” See Ex 1009, Kargol at
`
`col. 7 ll. 22-42.
`
`JP ’662
`
`F.
`36. Specifically, FIG. 2 of JP ’662 (reproduced below) shows a strain
`
`gage 8 (force measuring device) attached to a bracket 5 (support member) that is
`
`coupled to both the frame 32 of a vehicle seat (bottom portion of the seat) and to
`
`the movable upper rail 12 (slide mechanism). See Ex 1007, JP ’662 at col. 6 ll. 4-
`
`22 (English translation).
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`
`
`37. Upper rail 12 (slide mechanism) slides with respect to a lower rail 11
`
`(track), which is anchored to the vehicle floor via brackets 2. See Ex 1007, JP ’662
`
`at col. 6 ll. 10-19.
`
`38.
`
`JP ’662 also discloses that an air bag circuit judges whether the
`
`computed total load exceeds a preset load, i.e., a classification as whether or not an
`
`occupant is present. If the total load is judged to be smaller than the preset load, the
`
`air bag is suppressed. See Ex 1007, JP ’662 at col. 9 l. 22-col. 10 l. 7.
`
`G. Mehney
`39. Mehney discloses a seat 12 that is supported on a vehicle floor 16 by
`
`support structure 14 (as shown in FIG. 1 of Mehney). The seat 12 includes a frame
`
`30 including a bottom portion 32 and a back portion 34. FIG. 2 of Mehney
`
`(reproduced below) shows that the support structure 14 includes a track assembly
`
`18. The track assembly 18 includes a pair of parallel tracks 50, each track 50
`
`including a fixed lower rail 52 (track) and a slidable upper rail 54 (slide
`
`mechanism). Mounting members 20 (support member) are mounted between the
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`bottom of the seat 32 and the upper rail 54. See Ex 1006, Mehney at col. 2 ll. 50-
`
`62. Strain gages 81-84 are mounted on a flexible portion 68 of each mounting
`
`member 20. When an occupant sits on the seat, the weight of the occupant is
`
`transmitted through the frame 30 to the vehicle floor 16. Thus, the strain gages 81-
`
`84 determine the weight of the occupant that is transmitted through the frame 30.
`
`See Ex 1006, Mehney at col. 3 ll. 31-55. The system determines whether or not the
`
`weight of the occupant is high or low. Full or partial inflation of the inflatable
`
`device 102 (airbag) depends on the occupant weight being high or low,
`
`respectively. See Ex 1006, Mehney at col. 4 ll. 27-44.
`
`
`
`Schousek
`
`H.
`40. Schousek discloses an airbag restraint system including two sets 38,
`
`42 of pressure sensors 28 on a bottom of a bucket seat cushion. In addition to the
`
`occupant’s weight, the occupant’s center of weight distribution is determined based
`
`on the measured sensor responses. See Ex 1010, Schousek at FIG. 2 and col. 3 l.
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`64-col. 4 l. 22. If the total weight as determined by the sensors 28 is greater than a
`
`maximum infant seat threshold, then the microprocessor determines at <72> that
`
`an adult is present (i.e., classification as adult), and the air bag is deployed. See Ex
`
`1010, Schousek at FIG. 5A and col. 5 ll. 32-35. If the total weight as determined by
`
`the sensors 28 is less than a minimum infant seat threshold, then the
`
`microprocessor determines at <76> that the seat is empty (i.e., classification as
`
`empty), and the air bag is not deployed. See Ex 1010, Schousek at FIG. 5A and col.
`
`5 ll. 36-39.
`
`41.
`
`If the total weight as determined by the sensors 28 is between the
`
`minimum and maximum infant seat thresholds, then the microprocessor determines
`
`at <80> that a small child or an occupied infant seat is present. See Ex. 1010,
`
`Schousek at col. 5 ll. 42-44. If the center of weight distribution is in front of a
`
`reference line <82>, a rear facing infant seat is detected and it is determined that a
`
`rear facing infant seat is present, and the airbag is not allowed to be deployed
`
`<84>. See Ex. 1010, Schousek at col. 5 ll. 44-47. If the center of weight
`
`distribution is not in front of the reference line, a forward facing infant seat is
`
`detected and the airbag is allowed to be deployed <86>. See Ex. 1010, Schousek at
`
`col. 5 ll. 47-50.
`
`42. Thus, Schousek discloses, inter alia, an “occupant classification” as
`
`being an adult, a rearward facing infant seat, not a rearward facing infant seat or
`
`21
`
`Page 21 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`empty. The deployment of the airbag is controlled based on this “occupant
`
`classification”. In the mid-90s, the industry was developing systems for accurately
`
`detecting the presence of rearward facing infant car seats. This is because the risk
`
`of injury is extremely high if an airbag deployed in such a situation.
`
`X. COMPARISON OF CLAIMS AND PRIOR ART
`I have compared the claims of the ’416 patent to the above described
`43.
`
`prior art references, as set forth in the Tables below.
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 1 and 3-7 of the ’416 patent are anticipated
`under U.S.C. §102(b) by DE ’074
`
`44.
`
`In my opinion, every feature in claims 1 and 3-7 of the ’416 patent is
`
`found in DE ’074. Tables are provided showing how each of the features of claims
`
`1 and 3-7 are met by DE ’074.
`
`45. Claim 1 of ’416 patent
`
`Anticipated by DE ’074
`
`1. A vehicle including a floor at least in
`part defining a passenger compartment
`of the vehicle, the vehicle comprising:
`
`a seat having a bottom portion and a
`back portion coupled at an angle to a
`rear portion of the bottom portion, the
`seat being adapted
`to support an
`occupant;
`to
`structure configured
`a
`support
`support the seat on the floor, the support
`structure comprising a track coupled to
`the
`floor engaged with a
`slide
`
`See DE ’074 at page 2 l. 5 vehicle
`seating for vehicles having a floor that
`defines at least in part a passenger
`compartment of the vehicle. See the
`entire disclosure and at least Fig. 1
`See DE ’074 at page 2 ll. 4-10: seat 2
`and seat back 3 wherein the seat back 3
`coupled at an angle to the seat 2
`
`See DE ’074 at page 2 ll. 5-8: guide rail
`8 corresponds
`to a “track” and
`is
`fastened to the vehicle floor
`
`22
`
`Page 22 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`mechanism configured to slide with
`respect to the track to enable the seat to
`move relative to the floor,
`
`the support structure further comprising
`a support member coupled to the slide
`mechanism and to the bottom portion of
`the seat;
`an occupant sensor system to obtain an
`indication of a weight applied by the
`occupant to the seat, the occupant
`sensor system comprising at least one
`force sensing device attached to the
`support member and configured
`to
`measure a force in the support member
`indicative of the weight applied by the
`occupant to the seat.
`
`
`Because DE ’074’s runner 7 slides with
`respect to the track 8, DE ’074 has a
`“slide mechanism configured to slide
`with respect to the track” that is coupled
`to the runner 7 (i.e., support member).
`See DE ’074 at page 2 ll. 6-8.
`See DE ’074 at page 2 ll. 5-8: runner 7 is
`part of the support for the vehicle seat 2
`and corresponds to a “support member”
`being moveably guided in guide rails 8
`See DE ’074 at page 2 ll. 11-17 & 41-45:
`mounted on each runner 7 are sensors 11
`and 12 for measuring forces F1 and F2;
`measurements from the sensors; sensors
`11, 12 are used to determine weight and
`position.
`
`46. Claim 3 of ’416 patent
`
`Anticipated by DE ’074
`
`3. The vehicle of claim 1, further
`comprising an airbag configured to
`protect the occupant in an accident
`involving the vehicle.
`
`
`See DE ’074 at page 2 ll. 22-24:
`collision protection cushion 20 which
`inflates with deceleration of the vehicle.
`
`47. Claim 4 of ’416 patent
`
`Anticipated by DE ’074
`
`4. The vehicle of claim 3, further
`comprising a processor coupled to the at
`least one force sensing device and
`configured to classify the occupant
`based on the force measured by the at
`least one force sensing device, wherein
`the processor is further configured to
`suppress a deployment of the airbag
`
`See DE ’074 at page 2 ll. 36-40:
`determines classification of whether or
`not a passenger is present based on
`occupant weight F1 and F2 and whether
`or not F1 + F2 < X. If F1 + F2 < X,
`then the collision protection cushion is
`not deployed.
`
`23
`
`Page 23 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`based on
`occupant.
`
`
`the classification of
`
`the
`
`48. Claim 5 of ’416 patent
`
`Anticipated by DE ’074
`
`5. A system for use in a vehicle
`including a floor at least in part defining
`a passenger compartment of the vehicle,
`the system comprising:
`
`a seat having a bottom portion and a
`back portion coupled at an angle to a
`rear portion of the bottom portion, the
`seat being adapted
`to support an
`occupant;
`to
`structure configured
`a
`support
`support the seat on the floor, the support
`structure comprising a track coupled to
`the
`floor engaged with a
`slide
`mechanism configured to slide with
`respect to the track to enable the seat to
`move relative to the floor,
`
`the support structure further comprising
`a support member coupled to the slide
`nism and to the bottom portion of the
`seat;
`
`an occupant sensor system configured to
`obtain an indication of a weight applied
`by the occupant to the seat, the occupant
`sensor system comprising at least one
`force sensing device attached to the
`support member and configured to
`measure a force in the support member
`indicative of the weight applied by the
`occupant to the seat; and
`
`See DE ’074 at page 2 l. 5. vehicle
`seating for vehicles having a floor that
`defines at least in part a passenger
`compartment of the vehicle. See the
`entire disclosure and at least Fig. 1.
`See DE ’074 at page 2 ll. 4-10: seat 2
`and seat back 3 wherein the seat back 3
`coupled at an angle to the seat 2
`
`See DE ’074 at page 2 ll. 5-8: guide rail
`8 corresponds to a “track” and is
`fastened to the vehicle floor
`Because DE ’074’s runner 7 slides with
`respect to the track 8, DE ’074 has a
`“slide mechanism configured to slide
`with respect to the track”. See DE ’074
`at page 2 ll. 6-8.
`See DE ’074 at page 2 ll. 5-8: runner 7
`is part of the support for the vehicle
`seat 2 and corresponds to a “support
`member” being moveably guided in
`guide rails 8
`See DE ’074 at page 2 ll. 11-17 & 41-
`45: mounted on each runner 7 are
`sensors 11 and 12 for measuring forces
`F1 and F2; measurements from the
`sensors; sensors 11, 12 are used to
`determine weight and position.
`
`24
`
`Page 24 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`a processor coupled to the at least one
`force sensing device and configured to
`classify the occupant based on the force
`measured by the at least one force
`sensing device, the classification of the
`occupant being for use to control a
`component of the vehicle.
`
`
`See DE ’074 at FIG. 2 and page 2 ll.
`31- 49: a frontal collision is detected
`and a control circuit 14 controls
`ignition of collision protection cushion
`20 based on whether occupant is
`present, forward or normal/rearward.
`
`49. Claim 6 of ’416 patent
`
`Anticipated by DE ’074
`
`6. The system of claim 5, wherein the
`component is an airbag configured to
`protect the occupant in an accident
`involving the vehicle.
`
`
`See DE ’074 at page 2 ll. 22-24:
`collision protection cushion 20 which
`inflates with deceleration of the vehicle.
`
`50. Claim 7 of ’416 patent
`
`Anticipated by DE ’074
`
`7. The system of claim 6, wherein the
`processor is configured to suppress a
`deployment of the airbag based on the
`classification of the occupant.
`
`See DE ’074 at page 2 ll. 36-40:
`determines classification of whether or
`not a passenger is present based on
`occupant weight F1 and F and whether
`or not F1 + F2 < X. If F1 + F2 < X,
`then the collision protection cushion is
`not deployed.
`
`
`
`B. Ground II: Claim 2 of the ’416 patent is obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§103(a) over DE ’074 and Patentee’s Admitted Prior Art
`
`51.
`
`In my opinion, claim 2 of the ’416 patent is obvious over DE ’074 and
`
`Patentee’s Admitted Prior Art.
`
`52. DE ’074 discloses sensors 11, 12 on a support member for measuring
`
`pressure forces. As indicated above, the ’416 patent itself refers to strain gages as a
`
`“conventional” force measuring device. See Ex 1001, ’416 Patent at col. 43 ll. 7-8.
`
`25
`
`Page 25 of 80
`
`

`

`Declaration of Priya Prasad, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,235,416
`
`It would have been obvious to use “conventional” strain gages to determine the
`
`occupant’s weight. A table is provided showing the reasons why claim 2 is
`
`obvious.
`
`53. Claim 2 of ’416 patent
`
`Obvious over DE ’074 and
`Patentee’s Admitted Prior Art
`
`2. The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the
`at
`least one force sensing device
`comprises a strain gage.
`
`See DE ’074 at page 2: measuring
`sensors 11, 12 for measuring pressure
`forces.
`It would have been obvious to use
`strain gages to measure force of DE
`’074 because it was well known in the
`art at the time of the invention in the
`’416 patent
`to use
`strain gage
`trans