IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent of: Cashler
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 15625-0019IP1
`
`U.S. Patent No.: 5,732,375
`
`Issue Date:
`
`March 24, 1998
`
`Appl. Serial No.: 08/566,029
`
`Filing Date:
`
`December 1, 1995
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Title:
`
`
`
`METHOD OF INHIBITING OR ALLOWING AIRBAG
`DEPLOYMENT
`
`
`
`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. 5,732,375 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No 15625-0019IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`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) ...................... 3 
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 103 ......................................... 3 
`
`II. 
`
`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.  Overview of ’375 Patent ........................................................................... 6 
`IV.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 8 
`
`V.  AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ’375 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE ................................................................................................... 9 
`
`D.  GROUND 1 – Audi Anticipates Claims 1 and 7 ...................................... 9 
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 9 
`Claim 7 .............................................................................................. 19 
`E.  GROUND 2 – Audi in view of Ohishi Renders Claims 1 and 7 Obvious.
`
`21 
`
`Claim 1 .............................................................................................. 22 
`Claim 7 .............................................................................................. 27 
`F.  GROUND 3 – Zeidler Anticipates Claims 1 and 7. ............................... 28 
`Claim 1 .............................................................................................. 28 
`Claim 7 .............................................................................................. 41 
`G.  GROUND 4 – Zeidler in view of Blackburn Renders Claims 1 and 7
`Obvious. 43 
`Claim 1 .............................................................................................. 45 
`Claim 7 .............................................................................................. 53 
`VI.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 55 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No 15625-0019IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Honda-1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 to Cashler (“the ’375 Patent”)
`
`Honda-1002
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’375 Patent (“the
`Prosecution History”)
`
`Honda-1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Kirsten Carr regarding the ’375 Patent
`
`Honda-1004
`
`Honda-1005
`
`German Patent DE 38 09 074 A1 (“Audi”), English Translation
`and Translator’s Declaration
`
`Japanese Utility Model H3-110966 (“Ohishi”), English
`Translation and Translator’s Declaration
`
`Honda-1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,612,876 (“Zeidler”)
`
`Honda-1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,232,243 (“Blackburn”)
`
`Honda-1008
`
`Honda-1009
`
`Webster’s New World Dictionary of American English, 1991,
`pg. 937, definition of “occupant”
`
`Joint Claim Construction Brief , Signal IP v. American Honda
`Motor Co., et al., Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM, Document 46
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No 15625-0019IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`Honda (“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 and 7 (“the Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 (“the ’375 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 disclosure 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. The ‘375 Patent is the subject of an Ex Parte
`
`Reexamination, Serial No. 90/013,386, filed October 27, 2014, currently pending.
`
`The ‘375 patent is asserted in the following civil litigation matters: 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
`
`1
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No 15625-0019IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`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 Michigan, filed on September 26, 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 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. BMW of North America, LLC et al, Case No. 2-14-cv-03111, 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. Nissan North America, Inc.,
`
`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. 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. 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.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No 15625-0019IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`8-14-cv-00491, 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; Signal IP,
`
`Inc. v. 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. 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; and Takata Seat Belts In v. Delphi Automotive Sy, 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 IPR15625-0019IP1@fr.com.
`
`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.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No 15625-0019IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`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 ’375 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
`
`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 Ex. 1003, the Declaration of Dr. Kirsten M. Carr (“Carr”), referenced
`
`throughout this Petition.
`
`’375 Patent Claims
`Ground
`Ground 1 Claims 1 and 7
`
`Ground 2 Claims 1 and 7
`
`Basis for Rejection
`Anticipated by Audi under 35 U.S.C. §
`102
`Obvious over Audi in view of Ohishi
`
`4
`
`

`

`Ground
`
`’375 Patent Claims
`
`Ground 3 Claims 1 and 7
`
`Ground 4 Claims 1 and 7
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0019IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`Basis for Rejection
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`Anticipated by Zeidler under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102
`Obvious over Zeidler in view of
`Blackburn under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`The ’375 Patent issued on March 24, 1998 from application no. 08/566,029
`
`(Ex. 1002), which was filed December 1, 1995. The ’375 Patent claims no
`
`priority. For the purposes of this Petition, Honda treats all of the Challenged
`
`Claims as entitled to the December 1, 1995 filing date, but does not take a position
`
`as to whether those claims are, in fact, entitled to this filing date.
`
`Audi (German Patent Published Application No. DE 38 09 074 A1, Ex.
`
`1004 (Audi)) qualifies as prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b). Audi
`
`published on October 5, 1989, more than one year before the earliest effective
`
`filing date of the Challenged Claims.
`
`Ohishi (Japanese Unity Model H3-110966, Ex. Honda-1005) qualifies as
`
`prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b). Ohishi was published
`
`November 13, 1991, more than one year before the earliest effective filing date of
`
`the Challenged Claims.
`
`Zeidler (U.S. Patent No. 5,612,876, Ex. 1006) qualifies as prior art at least
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b). Zeidler was filed March 3, 1995, and claims
`
`5
`
`

`

`priority to March 3, 1994, before the earliest effective filing date of the Challenged
`
`Claims. Zeidler published March 18, 1997, and thus is prior art at least under 35
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0019IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Blackburn (U.S. Patent No. 5,232,243, Ex. 1007 (Blackburn)) 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 earliest effective filing date of the Challenged
`
`Claims.
`
`C. Overview of ’375 Patent
`
`
`
`The ’375 Patent is directed to a “method of airbag control in a
`
`vehicle” including three primary steps: (i) defining a plurality of seat areas having
`
`force sensors; (ii) measuring the force detected by each sensor in each of the
`
`plurality of seat areas; and (iii) allowing deployment of the airbag only if either the
`
`total force measured across the entire seat is greater than a total threshold force or
`
`the force measured locally across a seat area is greater than a seat area threshold
`
`force. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 (’375 Patent), Claim 1.
`
`1. Defining a plurality of seat areas having force sensors
`
`The ’375 Patent discloses that the passenger seat is divided into various
`
`“seat areas,” including a front, rear, center, left, and right area. Id. at 3:21-32.
`
`Each seat area has “pressure sensors” that are used as force sensors. Id. at 3:11-32.
`
`The sensors themselves are described as comprising “two polyester sheets each
`
`6
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No 15625-0019IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`having a film of resistive ink connected to a conductive electrode.” Ex. Honda-
`
`1001 (’375 Patent), 3:14-16. The two resistive films are arranged such that “the
`
`resistance between electrodes decreases as pressure increases.” Id. at 3:16-18.
`
`2. Measuring the force detected by each sensor in each of
`the plurality of seat areas
`
`The ’375 Patent describes that force being applied to each sensor is
`
`measured by measuring the voltage produced by the sensor. Id. at 3:48-67. Each
`
`sensor produces a voltage within a range between 0-255 and should produce a
`
`voltage near zero if no force is being applied. Id. Thus, in the system disclosed by
`
`the patent, an empty seat should produce near zero total force. Id. Furthermore,
`
`the typical range of voltage produced by a sensor is between 0-50. Id.
`
`3. Allowing deployment of the airbag if either the total
`force measured across the entire seat is greater than a
`total threshold force or the total force measured across a
`seat area is greater than the seat area threshold force
`
`The ’375 Patent describes a controller that “analyzes the sensor inputs and
`
`issues a decision whether to inhibit airbag deployment.” Id. at 3:5-8. To make this
`
`decision, the controller will first calculate the total force value. Id. at 3:49-50.
`
`This total force value is then compared to “high and low thresholds.” Id. at 5:12-
`
`13. If the total force value is above the high threshold, the controller will allow
`
`deployment of the airbag; if the total force value is below the low threshold, the
`
`controller will inhibit deployment. Id. at 5:13-15. The controller will also
`
`7
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No 15625-0019IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`calculate the force applied to a seating area using the force sensors within that
`
`seating area. Id. at 4:40-42. Then, the controller compares the force applied to a
`
`seating area to the threshold for that seating area; if the force applied to the seating
`
`area is greater than the threshold for that seating area, airbag deployment is
`
`allowed. Id. at 5:15-18.
`
`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
`
`in the claims of the ‘375 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 ’375
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent is not an admission by Petitioner that that claim term is met by any feature
`
`for infringement purposes.
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0019IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`V. AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ’375 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE
`
`D. GROUND 1 – Audi Anticipates Claims 1 and 7
`
`For at least the reasons discussed below, claims 1 and 7 of the ’375 Patent
`
`are anticipated by Audi, Ex. 1004, under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The following sections
`
`provide example disclosure from Audi, as well as explanation of how each portion
`
`of the reference applies to each limitation of the claims.
`
`Claim 1
`The following claim chart identifies example disclosure in Audi that teaches
`
`the elements of claim 1:
`
`Claim Language
`
`[1.0]: “1. A method of airbag control in a vehicle
`having an array of force sensors on the passenger seat
`coupled to a controller for determining whether to
`allow airbag deployment based on sensed force and
`force distribution comprising the steps of:”
`
`Audi
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1004
`(Audi), 2:1-4, 3:17-19,
`32-46, 61-4:15 FIGS. 1-
`3; Ex 1009, p. 55; ; Ex.
`1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶¶ 15-
`16.
`
`[1.1]: “measuring the force detected by each sensor;” See, e.g., Ex. 1004
`(Audi) 3:17-19, 3:32-35,
`FIGS. 1-2; Ex. 1003
`(Carr Decl.), ¶ 17.
`[1.2]: “calculating the total force of the sensor array;” See, e.g., Ex. 1004
`(Audi) 3:61-4:15, FIG.
`2, operation 25; Ex.
`
`9
`
`

`

`[1.3]: “allowing deployment if the total force is above
`a total threshold force;”
`
`[1.4]: “defining a plurality of seat areas, at least one
`sensor located in each seat area;”
`
`[1.5]: “determining the existence of a local pressure
`area when the calculated total force is concentrated in
`one of said seat areas;”
`
`[1.6]: “calculating a local force as the sum of forces
`sensed by each sensor located in the seat area in
`which the total force is concentrated; and”
`[1.7]: “allowing deployment if the local force is
`greater than a predefined seat area threshold force.”
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0019IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶ 18.
`See, e.g., Ex. 1004
`(Audi) 3:61-4:15, FIG.
`2; Ex. 1003 (Carr Decl.),
`¶ 19.
`See, e.g., Ex. 1004
`(Audi) 3:17-31, 3:48-
`4:15, FIGS. 1-2; Ex.
`1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶ 20.
`See, e.g., Ex. 1004
`(Audi) 3:38-4:61, FIG.
`1-2; Ex. 1003 (Carr
`Decl.), ¶ 21.
`See, e.g., Ex. 1004
`(Audi) 3:17-31; Ex.
`1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶ 22.
`See, e.g., Ex. 1004
`(Audi) FIG. 2; Ex. 1003
`(Carr Decl.), ¶ 23.
`
`[1.0]: “A method of airbag control in a vehicle having an array of force
`sensors on the passenger seat coupled to a controller for determining whether
`to allow airbag deployment based on sensed force and force distribution
`comprising the steps of”
`
`In the present Petition, 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, Audi still
`
`discloses the features recited in the preamble.
`
`Audi describes a method of airbag control in a vehicle using a “safety
`
`system for motor vehicles, including an inflatable airbag.” Ex. 1004 (Audi), 2:1-4.
`
`The system has an ordered arrangement of force sensors, i.e., an array, particularly,
`
`10
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No 15625-0019IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`a “front sensor 11 and a rear sensor 12 that measure compressive forces (F1, F2)
`
`mounted on each sliding rail 7.” Id.at 3:17-19, FIG. 1; Ex. 1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶ 15.
`
`In the copending litigations, Patent Owner asserts that “on the passenger
`
`seat” should be interpreted as “Plain meaning, or: located such that weight on the
`
`passenger seat can be detected.” Ex. 1009 (Joint Claim Construction Brief), p. 55.
`
`Audi’s sensors are, under BRI, “on the passenger seat,” because they are on a
`
`component of the seat, i.e., the seat’s sliding rail, and in a location that allows the
`
`sensors detect the passenger seat’s weight. Ex. 1004 (Audi), 3:17-19, FIG. 1; Ex.
`
`1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶ 15.
`
`Audi discloses a controller, in particular control circuit 14, that determines
`
`whether to allow airbag deployment. Ex. 1004 (Audi), 3:32-46, FIG. 2. The
`
`“compressive forces (F1, F2)” measured by the sensors are “sent over a line 13 to a
`
`control circuit 14, which processes these values in the manner illustrated in Figure
`
`2.” Id. The control circuit evaluates the output of the sensors to determine
`
`whether to deploy the airbag. Id. at FIG. 2. The determination is made based on
`
`the force and the force distribution measured by the sensors. For example, if the
`
`sum of the forces measured by the force sensors, i.e., “F1+ F2,” is greater than a
`
`threshold, constant “X,” the system will allow deployment of the airbag. Id. at
`
`3:61-4:15, FIG. 2. The force distribution is taken into account, for example, when
`
`the “passenger has bent forward a relatively great distance (F1> F2), as indicated by
`
`11
`
`

`

`the branch 26, then there is a partial ignition (operation 27).” Id.; Ex. 1003 (Carr
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0019IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`Decl.), ¶ 16.
`
`Accordingly, Audi discloses “a method of airbag control in a vehicle having
`
`an array of force sensors on the passenger seat coupled to a controller for
`
`determining whether to allow airbag deployment based on sensed force and force
`
`distribution” as recited in the claim.
`
`[1.1]: “measuring the force detected by each sensor”
`
`As mentioned above, Audi uses a “front sensor 11 and a rear sensor 12 that
`
`measure compressive forces (F1, F2) are mounted on each sliding rail 7.” Ex. 1004
`
`(Audi), 3:17-19, FIG. 1. Audi discloses that the “measured values determined by
`
`the sensors 11, 12 are sent over a line 13 to a control circuit 14, which processes
`
`these values in the manner illustrated in Figure 2.” Id. at 3:32-46, FIG. 2. Control
`
`circuit 14 is Audi’s controller. Id., Ex. 1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶ 17.
`
`Accordingly, Audi’s controller measuring the output of the front and rear
`
`force sensors, is “measuring the force detected by each sensor,” as recited in the
`
`claim.
`
`[1.2]: “calculating the total force of the sensor array”
`
`Audi discloses that the forces measured with the sensors are summed, “F1+
`
`F2,” to evaluate whether to deploy the airbag. Ex. 1004 (Audi), 3:61-4:15, FIG. 2,
`
`operation 25., Ex. 1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶ 18
`
`12
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No 15625-0019IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`Ex. 1004 (Audi), FIG. 2 (Annotated).
`
`
`
`Accordingly, by summing the outputs of the front sensor and rear sensors,
`
`Audi discloses “calculating the total force of the sensor array” as recited in the
`
`claim.
`
`[1.3]: “allowing deployment if the total force is above a total threshold force”
`
`Audi discloses a total threshold force, constant “X.” Ex. 1004 (Audi), 3:61-
`
`4:15, FIG. 2. If the sum of the front sensor force F1 and the rear sensor force F2 is
`
`greater than or equal to X, i.e., “F1+ F2≥ X” in operation 25, the airbag is allowed
`
`to deploy. Id., Ex. 1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶ 19:
`
`13
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No 15625-0019IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`Ex. 1004 (Audi), FIG. 2 (Annotated).
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Audi discloses “allowing deployment if the total force is above
`
`a total threshold force” as recited in the claim.
`
`[1.4]: “defining a plurality of seat areas, at least one sensor located in each seat
`area”
`
`The arrangement of Audi’s seat sensors 11, 12 defines a seat area in front of
`
`the seat center of gravity line (S) containing the front seat sensors 11 and a seat
`
`area behind the seat center of gravity line (S) containing the rear seat sensors 12.
`
`Ex. 1004 (Audi), 3:17-31, FIG. 1, Ex. 1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶ 20. FIG. 1, reproduced
`
`and annotated below, shows a passenger 9 seated only in the front seat area. Audi
`
`describes that it can determine a passenger is in this seating position of FIG. 1
`
`14
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No 15625-0019IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`when the force at the front sensors 11 is greater than the force at the rear sensors
`
`12, i.e. “F1> F2.” Ex. 1004 (Audi), 3:48-4:5, FIGS. 1-2. Audi also describes that it
`
`can determine that the passenger 9 is seated in the rear seat area “resting against
`
`the backrest 3” when force at the front sensors 11 is greater than the force at the
`
`rear sensors 12. Id. at 4:6-15, FIG. 2, Ex. 1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶ 20:
`
`Ex. 1004 (Audi), FIG. 1 (Annotated).
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Audi discloses “defining a plurality of seat areas, at least one
`
`sensor located in each seat area” as recited in the claim.
`
`[1.5]: “determining the existence of a local pressure area when the calculated
`total force is concentrated in one of said seat areas”
`
`At operation 26 in FIG. 2, Audi evaluates whether the front sensor force F1
`
`is greater than the rear sensor force F2, i.e., “F1> F2,” to determine the existence of
`
`a local pressure area. Ex. 1004 (Audi), 3:38-4:5, FIG. 2; Ex. 1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶
`15
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No 15625-0019IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`21. If the total force is concentrated, to the extent that term can be given meaning,
`
`in the front seat area, i.e., “F1 > F2” at operation 26 is met, Audi determines the
`
`local pressure area is in the front seating area, such as the seating position of FIG.
`
`1, and the algorithm proceeds toward operation 27. Ex. 1004 (Audi), 3:48-60,
`
`3:86-4:61, FIGS. 1-2; Ex. 1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶ 21. If the total force is concentrated
`
`in the rear seat area, i.e., “F1> F2” at operation 26 is not met and F2 is greater than
`
`F1, Audi determines the local pressure area is in the rear seating area, for example,
`
`with the passenger 9 seated resting against the backrest, and the algorithm proceeds
`
`toward operation 28. Ex. 1004 (Audi), 4:6-15, FIG. 2; Ex. 1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶ 21.
`
`Either case, Audi determining F1 is greater than F2 or F2 is greater than F1,
`
`constitutes determining existence of a local pressure area. Ex. 1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶
`
`21.
`
`Accordingly, determining the occupant’s seating position based on the
`
`output reading from the front and rear sensor, as taught by Audi, discloses
`
`“determining the existence of a local pressure area when the calculated total force
`
`is concentrated in one of said seat areas” as recited in the claim.
`
`[1.6]: “calculating a local force as the sum of forces sensed by each sensor
`located in the seat area in which the total force is concentrated”
`
`Audi describes “a front sensor 11 and a rear sensor 12 that measure
`
`compressive forces (F1, F2) are mounted on each sliding rail 7” and associates the
`
`single value, F1, with the compressive forces at the front of the seat and the single
`16
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No 15625-0019IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`value, F2, with the compressive forces at the rear of the seat. Ex. 1004 (Audi),
`
`3:17-31 (emphasis added). “Each” indicates that there is more than one rail, and
`
`thus more than one front sensor 11 and more than one rear sensor 12. Ex. 1003
`
`(Carr Decl.), ¶ 22. For example, on a typical seat having two rails, Audi discloses
`
`that the output of two rear sensors 12 are summed to produce F2. Ex. 1003 (Carr
`
`Decl.), ¶ 22. The output of the rear force sensors 12 is “a local force,” as its output
`
`alone is not representative of the force applied across the entire seat. Id. By the
`
`same logic, the output of Audi’s front seat sensors 12 represents “a local force as
`
`the sum of forces sensed by each sensor located in the seat area in which the total
`
`force is concentrated.” Id.
`
`Accordingly, in measuring a force in the rear seating area or a force in the
`
`front seating area, Audi discloses “calculating a local force as the sum of forces
`
`sensed by each sensor located in the seat area in which the total force is
`
`concentrated” as recited in the claim.
`
`As an aside, even if Audi provided only one rear sensor 12 in the rear seat
`
`area or one front sensor 11 in the front seat area, the output of that one sensor
`
`represents “the sum of forces sensed by each sensor” in the rear seat area, because
`
`that one sensor is the only sensor located in the seat area. Ex. 1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶
`
`22.
`
`[1.7]: “allowing deployment if the local force is greater than a predefined seat
`area threshold force”
`
`17
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No 15625-0019IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`Audi allows deployment if, in addition to F1 + F2 ≥ X, the local force in the
`
`front seat area, front seat force F1, is greater than the rear seat force F2. Ex. 1004
`
`(Audi), FIG. 2. When the front seat force F1 is greater than the rear seat force F2,
`
`i.e., “ F1 < F2” at operation 26, the algorithm of Audi’s controller proceeds to
`
`operation 27 “partial deployment” if an accident occurs. Id. Thus, in such an
`
`instance, the front seat force F1 is “the local force” and the rear seat force F2 is the
`
`“predefined seat area threshold force.” The rear seat force F2 is a “predefined” seat
`
`area threshold force, because the selection of the rear seat force F2 as the threshold
`
`was predefined in Audi’s controller. Ex. 1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶ 23. Notably, the
`
`express language of the claim does not require that the value of the threshold force
`
`be predefined, only that the threshold be predefined. Ex. 1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶ 23.
`
`Also, FIG. 2 shows that Audi allows deployment, either operation 27
`
`“partial deployment” or operation 28 “complete deployment,” in the event of an
`
`accident if “F1 + F2 ≥ X.” Ex. 1004 (Audi), FIG. 2. Mathematically speaking, if
`
`the front seat force F1 alone, a local force, is greater than constant X regardless of
`
`the value of the rear seat force F2, Audi will also allow deployment. Id.; Ex. 1003
`
`(Carr Decl.), ¶ 24. The same is true if the rear seat force F2 alone, a local force, is
`
`greater than constant X. Ex. 1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶ 24. Thus, in either instance, the
`
`constant X is the predefined seat area threshold force. Ex. 1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶ 24.
`
`Notably, the express language of the claim read under broadest reasonable
`
`18
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No 15625-0019IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`interpretation does not require that the values of the seat area threshold and the
`
`total force threshold be different. Ex. 1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶ 24.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Audi discloses “allowing deployment if the local force is
`
`greater than a predefined seat area threshold force” as recited in the claim.
`
`Claim 7
`The following claim chart identifies example disclosure in Audi that teaches
`
`the elements of claim 7:
`
`Claim Language
`
`[7.0]: “The method of airbag control as defined in
`claim 1 wherein the defined seat areas overlap so that
`some sensors are included in more than one seat area,
`the seat areas including a front area, a rear area, a
`right area and a left area.”
`
`Audi
`
`See, e.g., Ground 1,
`[7.0], supra, Ground 1,
`[1.6], supra, Ex. 1004
`(Audi), FIG. 1, Ex.
`Honda-1003 (Carr
`Decl.), ¶ 25.
`
`
`
`[7.0] “The method of airbag control as defined in claim 1 wherein the defined
`seat areas overlap so that some sensors are included in more than one seat
`area, the seat areas including a front area, a rear area, a right area and a left
`area.”
`
`As discussed above, in a typical seat having two seat rails, Audi discloses
`
`two front sensors 11 and two rear sensors 12. Ground 1, [1.6], supra. The figure
`
`below shows the four sensors are arranged at four corners of the seat. Ex. 1004
`
`(Audi), FIG. 1, Ex. 1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶ 25. Such an arrangement of sensors
`
`defines a front seat area over the two front sensors 11, a rear seat area over the two
`
`19
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No 15625-0019IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`rear sensors 12, a left seat area over the left front sensor 11 and the left rear sensor
`
`12, and a right seat area over the right front sensor 11 and right rear sensor 12. Ex.
`
`1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶ 25.
`
`
`
`Audi’s Seat With Multiple Seat Areas
`
`Each of these seat areas includes a sensor and each overlap so that some
`
`sensors are included in more than one seat area. Ex. 1003 (Carr Decl.), ¶ 25.
`
`Accordingly, as shown in the figure above, Audi discloses the defined seat
`
`areas overlap so that s