Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: December 31, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NHK SEATING OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LEAR CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-01026
`Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before NEIL T. POWELL, MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, and
`CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`NHK Seating of America, Inc. (“NHK” or “Petitioner”) filed a
`petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 10–12,
`14, 15, and 17–21 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: December 31, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NHK SEATING OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LEAR CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-01026
`Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before NEIL T. POWELL, MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, and
`CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`NHK Seating of America, Inc. (“NHK” or “Petitioner”) filed a
`petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 10–12,
`14, 15, and 17–21 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026
`Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’733 patent”). 35 U.S.C. § 311. Lear Corporation (“Lear”
`or “Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when
`“the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any
`response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108.
`Based on our review of the record, we conclude that NHK is reasonably
`likely to prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.
`NHK contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103 based on the following grounds (Pet. 8–59):
`
`Ground
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims challenged
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`European Patent Application
`No. 1,053,907 (“Kage”)
`(Ex. 1003)
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent
`Application Publication No.:
`H11-34708 (“Nakano”)
`(Ex. 1004 with certified
`translation at Ex. 1005)
`
`International Publication No.
`WO 98/09838 A1 (“Wiklund”)
`(Ex. 1006)
`
`Wiklund and International
`Publication No. WO 00/35707
`A1 (“Humer”) (Ex. 1007)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,378,043
`(“Viano”) (Ex. 1008)
`
`§ 102(a) 10, 11, 14, 19, and
`20
`
`§ 102(b) 10, 11, 14, 19, and
`20
`
`§ 102(b) 10, 11, 14, 15, 19,
`and 20
`
`§ 103
`
`12, 17, 18, and 21
`
`§ 102(b) 10, 11, 19, and 20
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026
`Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`Ground
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims challenged
`
`6
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,378,043
`(“Schubring”) (Ex. 1009)
`
`§ 102(b) 10, 11, 19, and 20
`
`Generally, Lear contends that the Petition should be denied in its entirety.
`For the reasons described below, we institute an inter partes review of
`claims 10–12, 14, 15, and 17–21.
`B. Related Proceedings
`NHK identified as a related proceeding the co-pending district court
`litigation of Lear Corporation v. NHK Seating of America, Inc., Case
`Number 2:13-cv-12937-SJM-RSW (D. Mich.) filed July 5, 2013. Pet. 1.
`Lear identified six other inter partes review proceedings as being directed to
`patents alleged to be infringed in the district court litigation, including:
`IPR2014-01202 (U.S. Patent No. 5,378,043); IPR 2014-01079 (U.S. Patent
`No. 6,631,949); IPR 2014-01101 (U.S. Patent No. 6,631,955); IPR 2014-
`01200 (U.S. Patent No. 6,955,397); IPR 2014-00957 (U.S. Patent
`No. 7,455,357); and IPR2014-00925 (U.S. Patent No. 8,434,818).
`C. The ’733 Patent
`The ’733 patent relates to “a variable movement headrest arrangement
`for providing support to the head of an occupant of a vehicle upon vehicle
`impact.” Ex. 1001, 1:13–15. Among the challenged claims, claims 10 and
`19 are independent and are directed to a “vehicle seat and headrest
`arrangement.” Claim 10, which is illustrative, recites:
`10. A vehicle seat and headrest arrangement for use with a
`seat having a seatback in a vehicle, the vehicle seat and headrest
`arrangement comprising:
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026
`Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`a headrest arrangement including a headrest, the headrest
`arrangement having at least one impact target and at least
`one of a guide member and a follower;
`the seatback having the other at least one of a guide member
`and follower,
`the guide member having a guideway and
`the follower extending laterally and engaging the
`guideway of the guide member such that upon impact
`to the vehicle one of a rearward load by the occupant
`upon the impact target and the forward inertia of the
`headrest irrespective of whether occupant is in contact
`with the seatback will cause the follower to engage
`the guideway in such a manner as to cause the
`headrest to move in a manner so as to support a head
`of an occupant.
`Ex. 1001, 12:56–13:5.
`The Specification describes an embodiment of the claimed seat by
`referring to Figures 2 and 3. We reproduce below versions of Figures 2 and
`3 that are colorized to aid understanding of the seat with a headrest
`arrangement recited in the claims.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR22014-010226
`
`
`Patennt 6,665,7333 B1
`
`
`
`28 (bblue) pivott about axis A and immpact targeet 26 (pink)) moves reearward andd
`
`nt is a ’733 patenFiguree 3 of the ’
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figuure 2 of thee ’733 patennt is a
`
`
`
`
`
`persppective schhematic vieew of
`
`detaileed cross seection vieww of
`
`
`
`
`headdrest arranggement 14
`
`followwer 39 and d guide (unnnumbered
`25.
`
`but grreen) with
`
`
`
`
`incorrporated innto seatbacck frame 133.
`guideway
`
`
`
`
`Uponn a rearwaard load beiing appliedd to impact
`(pink), coonnectors
`
`t target 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`upward. Id. at
`8:18–21.
`
`
`
`
`Movemennt of impacct target 266 (pink) cauuses
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`memmbers 21 (ggreen). Id. at 8:21–266. Followeer 39 (red)) on headreest
`
` as
`
`
`
`
`
`extennsion 24 (ppink) slides along thee interior wwalls of gu
`ideway 25
`upward,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`headdrest extenssion 24 (piink) carryinng headresst 22 (purpple) moves
`
`
`
`
`whicch results in headrest 22 (purplee) moving
`
`
`in first andd second mmanners.
`
`Id. aat 8:26–41.
`
`
`headdrest extenssions 24 (ppink) to slidde upwardd through gguideway 225 of guidee
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026
`Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Interpretation
`As a step in our analysis for determining whether to institute a trial,
`we interpret the claims in an unexpired patent according to their broadest
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. 37 CFR § 42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
`meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`context of the disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`(Fed. Cir. 2007).
`NHK proposes interpretations for (1) “manner” as used in “move in a
`manner” and “move in a first manner and a second manner” and
`(2) “headrest extension having one of a guide member and a follower and an
`impact target” (claim 19). Pet. 6–7. Of these terms, we determine that we
`need only interpret “manner” and “move in a first manner and a second
`manner” to resolve disputes that the parties currently present regarding the
`differences between the prior art and the challenged claims. To the extent
`that these terms or any other terms of the claims are not discussed below, we
`interpret those terms according to the standard referenced above.
`NHK proposes that we interpret move “in a first and a second
`manner” broadly to mean move “in any two different ways.” Pet. 6. NHK
`neither cites nor discusses any portion of the Specification to support its
`proposed interpretation. Id. Nevertheless, NHK’s proposed interpretation
`appears to comport with a plain reading of “first and second manner.”
`Lear contends that the Specification expressly defines movement in a
`first and a second manner as follows:
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026
`Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`As will be described in greater detail below, headrest 22 moves
`variably upon vehicle impact. In the embodiment shown, such
`variable movement occurs in first and second manners wherein
`the first and second manners relate to first and second forward
`velocities respectively, those being the velocities of the headrest
`22 forward toward the occupant or the front of the vehicle, and
`first and second trajectories respectively, those being the
`trajectories or paths of headrest 22. Such variable movement
`could be along any suitable combination of trajectories and
`velocities. As long as at least one of the first forward velocity
`and first trajectory is different than one of a second forward
`velocity and second trajectory, movement in first and second
`manners, variable movement, has been achieved.
`Prelim. Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:9–22 with emphasis added). Based on
`this portion of the Specification, Lear argues that “first and second manner”
`means “[a]t least one of the first forward velocity and first trajectory of the
`first manner is different than one of the second forward velocity and second
`trajectory of the second manner.” Prelim. Resp. 12. Lear then proceeds to
`offer interpretations of its interpretation of first and second manner. Id.
`More specifically, Lear contends that “forward velocity” refers to the
`“speed” of the headrest rather than a speed along a “single specific vector”
`or speed relative to the occupant’s head. Id. at 12–14. Lear also contends
`that “trajectory” refers to a “particular linear or curved path described by an
`object” and that first and second trajectories would necessarily refer to
`different trajectories. Id. at 15–16. Lear acknowledges that “trajectory” is
`not expressly recited in any claim of the ’733 patent. Id. at 14.
`Nevertheless, Lear contends that the meaning of “trajectory” is relevant to
`this proceeding because, among other reasons, two other patents claiming
`priority to the parent applications for the ’733 patent expressly recite
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026
`Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`“trajectory” in the claims. Id. at 14–15. Lear then relies upon a figure from
`these other two patents in support of its position. Id. at 15.
`We are not persuaded by Lear’s argument in support of its proposed
`interpretation of “manner” for at least two reasons. First, Lear fails to
`persuade us that “manner” is specially defined in the Specification in a way
`that limits “manner” as proposed. As noted above, we interpret claims
`according to their broadest reasonable interpretation that is consistent with
`the specification, but we take care not to incorporate limitations that appear
`only in the specification. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404–05 (CCPA
`1969). Additionally, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently
`has noted that:
`To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set
`forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain
`and ordinary meaning. . . . It is not enough for a patentee to
`simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same
`manner in all embodiments, the patentee must “clearly express
`an intent” to redefine the term.
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
`2012) (internal citations omitted). Lear does not identify any portion of the
`Specification indicating a clear intent to limit “manner” as Lear proposes.
`Citing to examples in the Specification does not amount to redefining a term
`that has a plain and ordinary meaning.
`Second, even if “manner” were to incorporate the concepts of
`“forward velocity” and “trajectory,” Lear fails to explain persuasively why
`“speed” cannot refer to relative speed or why “trajectory” must be
`interpreted consistently with its express use in claims recited in another
`patent. In discussing “first manner,” the Specification describes moving in a
`first manner as “to more quickly lessen the gap between the head of an
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026
`Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`occupant and the headrest 22” and moving in a second manner as “to
`decrease the forward velocity and provide support upon contact with the
`occupant’s head.” Ex. 1001, 5:25–28. This description of first and second
`manner is directly at odds with Lear’s contended meaning of “forward
`velocity” as not referring to “relative speed between the headrest and a
`passenger’s head.” We also find unpersuasive Lear’s attempt to limit the
`scope of “manner” in this proceeding based on disclosures appearing in
`another patent that expressly claims “trajectory” when the challenged claims
`in this proceeding do not expressly recite “trajectory.”
`By contrast, we consider NHK’s proposed interpretation of “first and
`second manners” to refer to “any two different ways” as being based on the
`plain meaning of the phrase. Accordingly, we adopt it for purposes of this
`decision.
`B. The Challenges to the Claims
`NHK contends that the challenged claims are not patentable as either
`anticipated or obvious in light of various references including: Kage,
`Nakano, Wiklund, Humer, Viano, and Schubring. “A claim is anticipated
`only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
`expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal
`Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The
`Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)
`reaffirmed the framework for determining obviousness as set forth in
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). As observed by the Court in
`KSR, the factual inquiries set forth in Graham that are applied for
`establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) are summarized as follows:
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026
`Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at
`issue.
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. With these standards in mind, we address each
`challenge below.
`1. Anticipation of Claims 10, 11, 14, 19, and 20 by Kage
`Lear explains the operation of Kage using colorized versions of
`Kage’s Figs. 1 and 2 (reproduced below).
`
`Kage’s colorized Figure 1 depicts
`movable frame 2 with headrest
`supports 2a mounted within fixed
`frame 10.
`
`
`Kage’s colorized Figure 2 depicts
`how movable frame 2 and headrest
`supports 2a move within fixed frame
`10 upon impact.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026
`Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`NHK contends that Kage anticipates claims 10, 11, 14, 19, and 20 and
`sets forth the evidence from Kage to support its contentions in detailed claim
`charts. Pet. 9–20. NHK also proffers the testimony of Richard W. Kent,
`Ph.D. to explain the manner in which Kage describes the requirements
`recited in these claims. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 29–36.
`Lear does not address NHK’s argument relating to claim 10, but Lear
`contends that Kage does not anticipate claims 11, 14, 19, and 20 because
`Kage fails to describe a headrest that moves in a first and second manner.
`Prelim. Resp. 22–23. Lear’s argument is based on its proposed
`interpretation of “first and second manners,” which we have not adopted for
`reasons expressed in part II.A above. NHK contends that Kage describes
`moving its headrest in first and second manners as follows:
`the headrest 1 is displaced forward with respect to the vehicle
`body at an early timing of its movement, and is then displaced
`upward . . . when the passenger’s head contacts the headrest in
`practice, the relative speed between the passenger’s head and
`headrest can be minimized (since the moving direction of the
`headrest has changed in the upward direction).
`Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 45). This type of movement meets our
`interpretation of “first and second manners” as meaning “any two different
`ways.”
`We are, therefore, persuaded that NHK is reasonably likely to prevail
`in showing that Kage describes a headrest arrangement that moves the
`headrest in first and second manners as recited in claims 11, 14, 19, and 20.
`We are also persuaded that NHK is reasonably likely to prevail in showing
`that Kage describes all other elements of claims 10, 11, 14, 19, and 20.
`Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, we conclude that NHK has
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026
`Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing
`that Kage anticipates claims 10, 11, 14, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`2. Anticipation of Claims 10, 11, 14, 19, and 20 by Nakano
`Lear explains the operation of Nakano using colorized versions of
`Nakano’s Figure 4 (reproduced below left) and Figures 5(a)–(d) (reproduced
`below right). We incorporate those colorized figures to aid our explanation
`of the operation of Nakano.
`
`
`
`Nakano’s Fig. 4 is a perspective
`view of a linkage for actuating a
`head restraint during a collision.
`
`Nakano’s Figs. 5(a)–(d) are schematic
`illustrations of Nakano’s linkage in the
`design position (Fig. 5(a)), the actuated
`position (Fig. 5 (d)), and intermediate
`positions (Figs. 5(b) and 5(c)).
`Nakano’s linkage includes frame 31 (yellow), first link arm 61
`(green), second link arm 62 (blue), third link arm 63 (red), load receiving
`member 50 (blue), and head rest holder brackets 36 (pink). Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 16–
`20. During impact, load bearing members 50, 51 receive load and transfer
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026
`Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`that load through link arms 61, 62, 63 to raise head rest 40 (id., Fig. 6) to an
`actuated position. Id. at ¶ 19. Under normal conditions, coil spring 67
`biases first link arm 61 (green) clockwise as seen in Figures 5(a)–(d) so that
`the linkage is held in the design position. Id. at ¶¶ 23, 25, Figs. 4, 5(a).
`During impact, forces extend coil spring 67 and move the linkage to an
`actuated position in which first link arm 61 and second link arm 62 rotate
`counterclockwise and third link arm 63 rotates clockwise and slides upward.
`Id. at ¶¶ 25–29. The sliding of third link arm 63 is constrained and guided
`by pin 65, which projects from side portion 31a of frame 31 and engages
`guide hole 66 in third link arm 63. Id. at ¶ 22. The head rest holder brackets
`36 (pink) are supported within and slide through brackets 35 (yellow), which
`are attached to frame 31 (yellow), as the linkage moves the headrest from
`the design to the actuated position. Id. at ¶ 17, Figs. 2, 6.
`a) NHK’s Contentions
`NHK contends that Nakano anticipates claims 10, 11, 14, 19, and 20
`and sets forth the evidence from Nakano to support its contentions in
`detailed claim charts. Pet. 21–31. NHK also proffers Dr. Kent’s testimony
`to explain the manner in which Nakano describes the requirements recited in
`these claims. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 37–49.
`b) Lear’s Counter Arguments
`Lear argues that NHK’s anticipation challenge based on Nakano is
`deficient for varying reasons relating to three different groups of claims 10,
`11, 14, 19, and 20. We address each argument separately below and
`conclude that none of the arguments is persuasive at this stage of the
`proceeding.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026
`Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`(1) Claims 10, 11, and 14
`Lear contends that Nakano does not anticipate claims 10, 11, and 14
`for two reasons. First, Lear argues that Nakano’s guide pin 65 and guide
`hole 66 do not “cause the headreast to move in a manner.” Prelim.
`Resp. 25–27. We are not persuaded by this argument because guide pin 65
`and guide hole 66 are among the elements of Nakano’s structure that
`constrain and define the movement of Nakano’s headrest. Accordingly, we
`are persuaded that guide pin 65 and guide hole 66 are among those elements
`that cause the headrest to move in a manner as recited in these claims.
`Second, Lear argues that Nakano’s “third link arms 63 (red) . . .
`function as a driver and move separately from, and are not part of, the
`headrest arrangement.” Prelim. Resp. 33. We are not persuaded by this
`argument. First, Lear does not support its argument with citations to the
`Specification or any other evidence. Second, whether Nakano’s third link
`arm is part of “headrest arrangement” is a matter of definition, and we see no
`constraint preventing “headrest arrangement” from including third link arm
`63. Third, Lear’s argument is inconsistent with the claims, which recite an
`impact target as part of the headrest arrangement. Therefore, any structure
`linking the impact target and the headrest could be considered to be part of
`the headrest arrangement.
`(2) Claims 11, 14, 19, and 20
`Lear contends that Nakano does not anticipate claims 11, 14, 19, and
`20 because Nakano fails to describe a headrest that moves in a first and
`second manner. Prelim. Resp. 29–32. NHK proffers testimony from Dr.
`Kent, along with Dr. Kent’s modeling of the movement of Nakano’s
`headrest that is purported to demonstrate that Nakano’s headrest moves in
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026
`Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`two different ways when the headrest is actuated. Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1010
`¶ 41). NHK also identifies textual portions of Nakano describing Nakano’s
`headrest being raised and lifted obliquely forward, which NHK contends to
`be the “first and second manner.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 29 and 33;
`Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 38, 39, 41, and 43).
`Lear contends that Dr. Kent’s modeling is flawed based on its
`attorneys’ analysis of that modeling as reflected in the figure below.
`
`
`Lear superimposes each of Dr. Kent’s modeling results for the
`manner in which Nakano’s headrest moves and compares those
`superimposed images to a similarly scaled version of Nakano’s
`Fig. 2.
`More specifically, Lear contends that Dr. Kent’s is inaccurate and unreliable
`because he has failed to model the constraint imposed by bracket 35.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026
`Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`Prelim. Resp. 29–31. At this stage of the proceeding, we are not persuaded
`by Lear’s argument because we find it to be based upon analysis by its
`attorneys without supporting evidence from its own expert.
`Lear also contends that guide pin 65 and guide hole 66 have no effect
`on the manner in which Nakano’s headrest moves because that motion is
`defined solely by other parts of Nakano’s linkage. Prelim. Resp. 32. We are
`not persuaded by this argument on the record before us because it is based
`on unsupported attorney argument.
`(3) Claims 19 and 20
`Lear contends that Nakano fails to anticipate claims 19 and 20 for two
`reasons. First, Lear argues against Nakano’s contention that frame bracket
`35 and head rest holder 36 constitute a guide member and follower that
`cause the headrest to move in a first and second manner. Prelim. Resp. 27–
`28. Essentially, Lear argues that frame bracket 35 does not guide head rest
`bracket 36 and thus does not “cause” the headrest to move in any manner.
`Id. at 28. We are not persuaded by this argument because bracket 35
`constrains the movement of head rest bracket 36 and thus contributes to the
`“cause” of the movement of Nakano’s headrest. Lear admits as much in
`criticizing Dr. Kent’s modeling of the movement of Nakano’s headrest. Id.
`at 29.
`
`Second, Lear argues against NHK’s contention that the combination
`of Nakano’s head rest holder 36 and stay holder 37 is a follower that extends
`laterally. Prelim. Resp. 33–36. Lear argues that the prosecution history of
`claims 19 and 20 requires that we interpret “follower extending laterally” to
`preclude structures having a constant diameter like Nakano’s headrest
`holders 36. Id. at 34. Lear offers no other limitation on the interpretation of
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026
`Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`“extending laterally.” We are not persuaded by this argument because the
`combination of head rest holder 36 and stay holder 37 does not have a
`“constant diameter.”
`c) Conclusion
`For the reasons expressed above, we are persuaded at this stage of the
`proceeding that NHK has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would
`prevail in showing that Nakano anticipates claims 10, 11, 14, 19, and 20
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`3. Anticipation of Claims 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, and 20 by Wiklund
`The colorized versions of Wiklund’s Figures 2–4 (shown below)
`illustrate Wiklund’s active head restraint system and the manner in which
`Wiklund’s headrest moves during a collision.
`
`Wiklund’s Fig. 2 is a perspective
`view of elements that move
`headrest 4 during a collision.
`
`Wiklund’s Figs. 3 and 4 are side views
`illustrating the manner in which headrest
`4 moves during a collision.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026
`Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`During a rear collision, the occupant is forced backwards against Wiklund’s
`maneuvering means 10 (orange). Ex. 1006, 5:28–30. Movement of means
`10 causes link arms 12 (blue) to rotate counterclockwise (as shown in Figs. 3
`and 4), which lifts and rotates frame part 17 (orange). Id. at 5:28–6:1. This
`movement of frame part 17 slides holders 23 upward through supports 24 to
`lift headrest 4 and rotates holders 23 to move headrest 4 forward. Id. NHK
`contends that the movement of headrest upward and forward constitutes
`movement in a “first and second manner.” Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:25–
`28), 38 (citing Ex. 1006, Fig. 4 and Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 56 and 57).
`a) NHK’s Contentions
`NHK contends that Wiklund anticipates claims 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, and
`20 and sets forth the evidence from Wiklund to support its contentions in
`detailed claim charts. Pet. 31–43. NHK also proffers Dr. Kent’s testimony
`to explain the manner in which Wiklund describes the requirements recited
`in these claims. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 51–59.
`b) Lear’s Counter Arguments
`Lear argues that NHK’s anticipation challenge based on Wiklund is
`deficient for varying reasons relating to two different groups of claims 10,
`11, 14, 15, 19, and 20. We address each argument separately below and
`conclude that none of the arguments is persuasive at this stage of the
`proceeding.
`
`(1) Claims 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, and 20
`Lear contends that Wiklund fails to anticipate claims 10, 11, 14, 15,
`19, and 20 for two reasons. First, Lear argues that Wiklund’s headrest
`extension holders 23 are not followers that are “extending laterally” because
`they have a constant diameter. Prelim. Resp. 38. We do not find this
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026
`Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`argument persuasive because NHK identifies the unnumbered stays (red in
`the colorized versions of Figs. 3 and 4 above) near the top of holders 23
`(pink) to be part of the alleged follower. Pet. 35. Accordingly, the
`“follower” holders 23 do not have a constant diameter, and Lear offers no
`other limitation on the interpretation of “extending laterally.”
`Second, Lear argues that Wiklund’s headrest extension holders 23
`(pink) do not engage, and are not guided by, the supports 24 (green), in such
`a manner to cause the headrest to move in a certain manner. Prelim.
`Resp. 39. Lear reasons that the manner in which Wiklund moves the
`headrest is “caused” by the coordinated movement of link arms 12 (blue)
`and frame part 17 (orange) and not extension holders 23 and supports 24 as
`alleged by NHK. Id. at 39–40.
`We are not persuaded by Lear’s argument because support 24
`constrains the movement of holder 23 as holder 23 slides within support 24
`and therefore also “causes” headrest 4 to move in a particular manner. For
`example, support 24 acts as a pivot point for holder 23 as it slides upward in
`support 24 and rotates counterclockwise to move headrest 4 forward.
`(2) Claims 11, 14, 15, 19, and 20
`Lear contends that Wiklund fails to anticipate claims 11, 14, 15, 19,
`and 20 because Wiklund’s headrest 4 does not move in first and second
`manners. Prelim. Resp. 40–42. More specifically, Lear contends that
`Wiklund’s headrest moves “in one trajectory” and that the portion of
`Wiklund cited by NHK fails to demonstrate movement of the headrest in
`first and second manners. Id. at 40–41.
`We are not persuaded by this argument at this stage of the proceeding.
`We conclude on the record before us that the portions of Wiklund relied
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026
`Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`upon by NHK as describing movement of the headrest in a “first and second
`manner” establish that Wiklund’s headrest moves upward and rotates
`forward. For example, Wiklund explains that “with the help of the link arms
`12, guided in such a way that the holders 23 slide upwards in the support 24
`at the same time as they are bent forwards.” Ex. 1006, 5:30–6:1. Dr. Kent
`further explains the manner in which Wiklund’s headrest moves in a first
`and second manner. Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 54–57.
`c) Conclusion
`For the reasons expressed above, we are persuaded at this stage of the
`proceeding that NHK has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would
`prevail in showing that Wiklund anticipates claims 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, and 20
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`4. Obviousness of Claims 12, 17, 18, and 21 in View of Wiklund
`and Humer
`NHK contends that the combination of Wiklund and Humer renders
`claims 12, 17, 18, and 21 obvious and sets forth the evidence from Wiklund
`and Humer to support its contentions in detailed claim charts. Pet. 43–46.
`NHK also proffers Dr. Kent’s testimony to explain the manner in which
`Wiklund describes the requirements recited in these claims. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 60–
`69. Claims 12 and 21 depend from claims 10 and 20, respectively, and
`further recite a “damper connected between the headrest arrangement and
`the seatback.” Ex. 1001, 13:15–16 (claim 12), 14:26–27 (claim 21). NHK
`relies upon Humer for its disclosure of a damper as recited in these claims.
`Pet. 44–46. More specifically, NHK contends that Humer teaches using a
`damper 118 to improve “energy absorptions” of the Saab SAHR headrest.
`Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1007, 7:27–8:4). NHK also contends that Wiklund is also
`directed to the same Saab SAHR headrest. Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1010, ¶ 60).
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026
`Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`NHK therefore concludes that an ordinary artisan would have found it
`obvious to improve Wiklund by adding Humer’s damper between the
`headrest arrangement and the seatback. Pet. 43–44. NHK contends that an
`ordinary artisan would have found it obvious to add a damper to Wiklund to
`“provide ‘some energy absorption to cause more even and controlled contact
`with the head during impact’ because without the damper 118 ‘the head
`tends to oscillate after impacting a headrest cushion.’” Id. at 44 (citing
`Ex. 1007 page 8:1–4; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 60, 61, and 63).
`Claims 17 and 18, which depend from claim 12, recite additional
`elements (“movement-allowing connector” in claim 17 and “biasing
`member” in claim 18). Ex. 1001, 13:52–59. NHK relies upon Wiklund as
`describing structures corresponding to the “movement-allowing connector”
`introduced in claim 17 and the “biasing member” introduced in claim 18.
`Pet. 44–45.
`Lear argues that NHK’s obviousness challenge fails for two reasons.
`First, Lear reiterates its arguments that Wiklund fails to describe elements in
`independent claims 10 and 19. Prelim. Resp. 42. We find this argument
`unpersuasive for the same reasons expressed above in connection with the
`challenges to those claims as being anticipated by Wiklund.
`Second, Lear argues that NHK’s obviousness rationale fails because it
`must go beyond “mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
`articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
`conclusion of obviousness.” Prelim. Resp. 43–44 (citing KSR). Lear
`contends that “NHK does not even suggest where or how the damper of
`Humer could be incorporated into the arrangement of Wiklund and thus falls
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01026
`Patent 6,665,733 B1
`
`short of meeting its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing in proving obviousness.” Id. at 44.
`We are not persuaded by this argument at this stage of the proceeding.
`Humer expressly identifies where to place a damper in its headrest
`arrangement, which corresponds with the claimed location of being
`“connected between the headrest arrangement and the seatback.” Ex. 1007,
`7:27–8:4, Fig. 2. Humer also explains that the damper would perform the
`recited function of retarding movement of the headrest after it has moved to
`support the head of an occupant. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1007 at 7:8–10). NHK
`explains why an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to alter
`Wiklund to add the damper of Humer. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1007 page 8:1–4;
`Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 60, 61, and 63). NHK also identifies the link between the
`owners of Wiklund and Humer and the commercial product described in
`both references as a reason that an ordinary artisan would be motivated to
`incorporate Humer’s damper into Wiklund’s se
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
