UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,
`HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., INC.,
`HONDA PATENTS & TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
`and HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________________
`Case IPR2015-01004
`Patent 6,012,007
`_______________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,
`HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., INC.,
`HONDA PATENTS & TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
`and HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________________
`Case IPR2015-01004
`Patent 6,012,007
`_______________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1. Introduction. .............................................................................................. 1
`
`2. Overview of the ‘007 Patent. .................................................................... 2
`
`3. Argument. .................................................................................................. 9
`
`A. The Challenged Claims Are Not Anticipated by Schousek. ............. 9
`
`i. Overview of Schousek. ........................................................................ 10
`
`ii. The Minimum Weight of an Occupied Infant Seat Taught by Schousek
`is Not Equivalent to the First Threshold of a Relative Weight Parameter
`Recited in the Challenged Claims. ......................................................... 12
`
`iii. The Maximum Weight of an Occupied Infant Seat Taught by
`Schousek is Not Equivalent to the First Threshold of a Relative Weight
`Parameter Recited in the Challenged Claims. ....................................... 14
`
`iv. Schousek Does Not Teach Setting a Lock Flag When a Relative
`Weight Parameter is Above a Lock Threshold and Air Bag Deployment
`has Been Allowed for a Given Time, as Recited in the Challenged
`Claims. ................................................................................................... 17
`
`v. Schousek Does Not Teach Clearing a Lock Flag When a Relative
`Weight Parameter is Below an Unlock Threshold for a Time, as Recited
`in the Challenged Claims. ...................................................................... 20
`
`B. Petitioner Has Failed to Demonstrate that Either of Claims 18 and
`19 are Obvious in View of Schousek and Blackburn. .......................... 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4. Conclusion. .............................................................................................. 22
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`CASES
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................. 22
`
`Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co.,
`730 F.2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ................................................................. 16
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................. 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co.,
`868 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ................................................................. 13
`
`Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm.,
`339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................................... 13, 19, 21
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 112(d) ................................................................................. passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2001
`
`
`
`Transcript of deposition of Dr. Carr.
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`1. Introduction.
`
`Petitioner’s challenge to the patentability of claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 17-
`
`21 of U.S. Patent 6,012,007 (the “’007 Patent”) should be denied and the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) should confirm the
`
`patentability of these claims because Schousek fails to teach or suggest
`
`allowing deployment of air bags when a relative weight parameter used by a
`
`vehicle restraint system is above a first threshold, establishing a lock
`
`threshold above the first threshold, and setting a lock flag when the relative
`
`weight parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been
`
`allowed for a given time. As explained below, and contrary to Petitioner’s
`
`contentions, the minimum weight of an occupied infant seat as used by
`
`Schousek is not equivalent to the first threshold of the relative weight
`
`parameter recited in the challenged claims. This is because in Schousek, air
`
`bag deployment is not allowed when seat sensors detect a weight above that
`
`minimum weight of an occupied infant seat. Instead, air bag deployment is
`
`inhibited in such circumstances unless the seat sensors also detect a forward-
`
`facing infant seat.
`
`
`
`Further, even if one were to equate the minimum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat as used by Schousek with the first threshold of the
`
`relative weight parameter recited in the challenged claims, it would still be
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`the case that Schousek fails to teach or suggest establishing a lock threshold
`
`above the first threshold, and setting a lock flag when the relative weight
`
`parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for
`
`a given time. Instead, in the system described by Schousek, air bag
`
`deployment is permitted or inhibited irrespective of whether or not
`
`deployment has been allowed for a given time. Indeed, in some instances air
`
`bag deployment may be permitted even if previously such deployment was
`
`inhibited, or even if the seat sensors determine that a seat occupant weighs
`
`less than a purported “lock threshold.”
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to prove the unpatentability of any
`
`of the challenged claims and the Board should find in favor of Patent Owner
`
`on all issues nominated for trial.
`
`
`
`2. Overview of the ‘007 Patent.
`The ‘007 Patent discloses a method of controlling airbag deployment
`
`using pressure sensors to allow or inhibit airbag deployment based on
`
`passenger weight. Ex. 1001 at Abstract. According to the specification, air
`
`bag deployment is inhibited when a seat is empty or occupied by a small
`
`child. Deployment is allowed when the seat is occupied by a larger
`
`passenger. Id. at 2:55-58.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of the ‘007 patent (below) shows a typical airbag (or
`
`supplemental inflatable restraint -- “SIR”) system:
`
`
`
`Id. at 1:15-16, 2:18-19. An accelerometer (15) senses an impending crash
`
`and a microprocessor (16) receives signals from the accelerometer and
`
`determines whether to deploy an air bag. Id. at 2:46-49. On the other side of
`
`the figure, seat occupant sensors (26, 28) communicate with a separate
`
`microprocessor (22), which determines whether airbag deployment should
`
`be inhibited. Id. at 3:4-7. The occupant sensors are a series of voltage
`
`dividers made of resistors (26) in series with a pressure sensor or variable
`
`resistor (28). Id. at 2:64-3:2. The seat occupant detector microprocessor (22)
`
`analyzes seat occupant sensor voltage in order to derive passenger weight
`
`information. Id. at 2:61-3:7.
`
`The positions of the sensors are shown in Figures 2 and 3 of the ‘007
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`patent, which are reproduced below (with annotations added to Fig. 2). Id. at
`
`2:20-21.
`
`The seat cushion has an upper surface 38 and a lower surface 40. Id. at 3:21-
`
`22. The lower surface is “seated on a rigid sheet or plastic form.” Id. at 3:21-
`
`
`
`23. The form (42) “holds a dozen pressure sensors 28 on its upper surface so
`
`that the sensors are pressed against the bottom surface 40 of the seat
`
`cushion.” Id. at 3:24-27.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 of the ‘007 Patent, which is reproduced below, is a flowchart
`
`overview of the operation of the system. Id. at 3:36. The seat occupant
`
`detector microprocessor (22) reads the sensor values (46). Id. at 3:37-38.
`
`One sensor at a time is turned on and sampled once every 100 msec. Id. at
`
`3:40-41. The readings are then bias corrected -- a bias calibrated for each
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`sensor is subtracted from each sensor reading (48). Id. at 3:37-41. Then,
`
`decision measures are computed (50) and decision algorithms are run (52) to
`
`produce an output, which output (54) represents a decision (with an
`
`accompanying signal) to either inhibit (56) or allow (58) air bag deployment.
`
`Id. at 3:41-46.
`
`The decision measure computations involve calculation of: the total
`
`force (the sum of the sensor
`
`outputs) and a total force
`
`threshold; sensor load ratings
`
`and measure; the long term
`
`average of the sensor readings
`
`and its threshold; and group
`
`sensor measures and thresholds.
`
`Id. at 3:48-55; 4:11-15. The
`
`different thresholds are variable
`
`and may increase and decrease over time. Id at 3:56-60. Inhibit times (during
`
`which no variation is permitted) are selected to control the rates of increase
`
`and decrease. Id. at 3:60-61.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`The main decision algorithm uses an “Adult Lock Flag” as shown in
`
`Figure 8 of the ‘007 Patent (below). Id. at 4:36-37. Here, the term “adult” is
`
`used to distinguish
`
`between an occupant
`
`of a certain weight and
`
`a “child.” Id. at 4:37-
`
`40. A lock threshold
`
`and an unlock
`
`threshold are used to
`
`determine whether an
`
`“adult,” or occupant
`
`above a threshold
`
`mass, is in the seat. Id. at 4:36-44. A lock timer measures the time after the
`
`vehicle ignition is turned on, and a lock delay on the order of one to five
`
`minutes is used. Id. at 4:42-44.
`
`A final decision algorithm for whether to deploy an airbag is shown in
`
`Figure 10 of the ‘007 Patent,
`
`which is reproduced at left.
`
`Id. at 5:8-9. A counter
`
`tabulates from zero to 255,
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`and is incremented if an allow decision is made and decremented if an
`
`inhibit decision is made. Id. at 5:9-13. Final consent to deploy is granted
`
`when the count exceeds 133. Id. at 5:13-14. If consent is granted, a count
`
`over 123 is needed to maintain the state, and if the count falls below 123, the
`
`consent is revoked and deployment is inhibited. Id. at 5:9-18. By averaging
`
`measures over time, the system can account for occupant movement. Id. at
`
`5:31-33.
`
`The challenged independent claims of the ‘007 Patent are reproduced
`
`below:
`
`1. In a vehicle restraint system having a controller for
`deploying air bags and means for selectively allowing
`deployment according to the outputs of seat sensors
`responding to the weight of an occupant, a method of
`allowing deployment according to sensor response
`including the steps of:
`determining measures represented by individual
`sensor outputs and calculating from the sensor outputs a
`relative weight parameter;
`establishing a first threshold of the relative weight
`parameter;
`allowing deployment when the relative weight
`parameter is above the first threshold;
`establishing a lock threshold above the first threshold;
`setting a lock flag when the relative weight parameter
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`is above the lock threshold and deployment has been
`allowed for a given time;
`establishing an unlock threshold at a level indicative
`of an empty seat;
`clearing the flag when the relative weight parameter is
`below the unlock threshold for a time; and
`allowing deployment while the lock flag is set.
`
`
`17. In a vehicle restraint system having a controller for
`deploying air bags, means for inhibiting and allowing
`deployment according to whether a seat is occupied by a
`person of at least a minimum weight comprising:
`seat sensors responding to the weight of an occupant
`to produce sensor outputs;
`a microprocessor coupled to the sensor outputs and
`programmed to inhibit and allow deployment according
`to sensor response and particularly programmed to
`determine measures represented by individual
`sensor outputs and calculate from the sensor outputs a
`relative weight parameter,
`establish a first threshold of the relative weight
`parameter,
`allow deployment when the relative weight
`parameter is above the first threshold,
`establish a lock threshold above the first threshold,
`set a lock flag when the relative weight parameter
`is above the lock threshold and deployment has been
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`allowed for a given time,
`establish an unlock threshold at a level indicative
`of an empty seat,
`clear the flag when the relative weight parameter is
`below the unlock threshold for a time, and
`allow deployment while the lock flag is set.
`
`
`
`3. Argument.
`A. The Challenged Claims Are Not Anticipated by Schousek.
`
`Schousek, US Pat. 5,474,327 (Ex. 1004) does not anticipate any of
`
`claims 1-3, 5, 9,17, 20, and 21. Schousek describes a system that is,
`
`arguably, similar to that illustrated in Figure 1 of the ‘007 Patent, but which
`
`employs very different procedures for controlling deployment of an air bag.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1004 at Figs. 1 and 5A-5B. For example, Schousek fails to
`
`teach or suggest allowing deployment of an air bag when a relative weight
`
`parameter used by a vehicle restraint system is above a first threshold,
`
`establishing a lock threshold above the first threshold, and setting a lock flag
`
`when the relative weight parameter is above the lock threshold and
`
`deployment has been allowed for a given time.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i. Overview of Schousek.
`
`In Schousek, air bag deployment is determined based on an evaluation
`
`of the weight of a seat occupant vis-à-vis certain thresholds. If the total
`
`weight of the seat occupant is
`
`less than a minimum weight of
`
`an occupied infant seat, the seat
`
`is determined to be empty and
`
`air bag deployment is inhibited.
`
`If the total weight of the seat
`
`occupant is greater than a
`
`maximum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat, air bag
`
`deployment is not inhibited.
`
`Finally, if the total weight of the
`
`seat occupant is determined to
`
`be between the minimum weight
`
`of an occupied infant seat and the maximum weight of an occupied infant
`
`seat, air bag deployment depends on factors such as the legal requirements
`
`of where the vehicle is operated and/or whether the center of weight
`
`distribution is forward or aft of a seat reference line. Id. at 2:12-46; 4:55 –
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`5:3; 5:23-50; Ex. 2001 at 9:11 – 11:16. This algorithm is illustrated in Fig.
`
`5A of Schousek. See steps 68 – 86 of Fig. 5A (reproduced above).
`
`Schousek also describes a fault detection procedure for an air bag
`
`control system. As illustrated in Fig. 5B (reproduced below), faults are
`
`detected by comparing the
`
`inhibit/no inhibit decisions
`
`reached in five consecutive
`
`loops of the process illustrated
`
`in Fig. 5A. Ex. 1004 at 5:51 –
`
`6:1. If the inhibit/no inhibit
`
`decision is consistent over five
`
`consecutive loops, it is deemed
`
`correct and that inhibit/no
`
`inhibit decision is forwarded to
`
`the air bag deployment module.
`
`Id. at 5:51-61. If, however, the
`
`five decisions are not the same, a previous inhibit/no inhibit decision is
`
`forwarded to the air bag deployment module and a fault registered. If a large
`
`number of consecutive faults are noted, then a fault condition is reported to
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`the air bag deployment module. Id. at 5:61-67. If this problem persists, a
`
`fault indicator is illuminated. Id. at 6:2-6.
`
`
`
`ii. The Minimum Weight of an Occupied Infant Seat Taught by
`Schousek is Not Equivalent to the First Threshold of a Relative
`Weight Parameter Recited in the Challenged Claims.
`
`As indicated above, claim 17 of the ‘007 Patent requires, inter alia:
`
`determin[ing] measures represented by individual
`sensor outputs and calculate from the sensor outputs a
`relative weight parameter,
`establish[ing] a first threshold of the relative
`weight parameter,
`allow[ing] deployment when the relative weight
`parameter is above the first threshold
`
`Ex. 1001 at 7:60-66. Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, Pet. at 15-16, 28, the
`
`minimum weight of an occupied infant seat, as taught by Schousek, is not
`
`equivalent to the recited “first threshold of the relative weight parameter.”
`
`
`
`According to Schousek, even if the seat sensors determine that the
`
`total weight of the seat occupant is greater than the minimum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat, air bag deployment is not allowed. Ex. 1004 at 5:39-47.
`
`Instead, only if the center of weight distribution is determined to be not
`
`forward of a reference line—a condition indicative of a forward-facing
`
`infant seat—is air bag deployment permitted. Id. at 5:47-50.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`This is contrary to the requirements of claim 17. According to the
`
`claim, when the relative weight parameter is above the first threshold,
`
`deployment is allowed. No other requirements need be met.
`
`A patent claim is “invalid for anticipation [only] if a single prior art
`
`reference discloses each and every limitation” of the claim. Schering Corp.
`
`v. Geneva Pharm., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Moreover, “The
`
`identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the
`
`… claim.”). Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1989). As demonstrated above, if one attempts to read the minimum weight
`
`of an occupied infant seat as a “first threshold of the relative weight
`
`parameter,” then Schousek fails to meet these requirements because even if
`
`that condition is met, air bag deployment is not allowed. Only if the center
`
`of weight distribution is determined to be consistent with a forward-facing
`
`infant seat is air bag deployment permitted. Ex. 1004 at 5:47-50.
`
`Consequently, claim 17 of the ‘007 Patent is not anticipated by Schousek.
`
`Like claim 17, claim 1 recites
`
`establishing a first threshold of the relative weight
`parameter;
`allowing deployment when the relative weight
`parameter is above the first threshold
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at 5:52-55. Thus, like claim 17, according to claim 1, when the
`
`relative weight parameter is above the first threshold, deployment is
`
`allowed. Inasmuch as Schousek fails to meet these requirements, for the
`
`reasons described above, claim 1 of the ‘007 Patent is not anticipated by
`
`Schousek.
`
`
`
`Claims 2, 3, 5, and 9 depend from claim 1, and claims 20 and 21
`
`depend from claim 17. Because each dependent claim necessarily includes
`
`the limitations of its respective parent, independent claim, 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112(d), claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 20, and 21 are not anticipated by Schousek for at
`
`least the reasons specified above.
`
`
`
`iii. The Maximum Weight of an Occupied Infant Seat Taught by
`Schousek is Not Equivalent to the First Threshold of a Relative
`Weight Parameter Recited in the Challenged Claims.
`
`Petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the other threshold taught
`
`by Schousek—the maximum weight of an occupied infant seat—is
`
`equivalent to the “first threshold of the relative weight parameter” recited in
`
`claim 17. This is because whenever the seat sensors in Schousek determine
`
`that the total weight sensed is greater than the maximum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat, air bag deployment is permitted. Ex. 2001 at 9:11 –
`
`10:5. This decision (to permit air bag deployment) is stored in an array. Id. at
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`14:3-15; Ex. 1004 at Fig. 5A and 5B. When five such concurrent decisions
`
`have been so stored, the decision to permit air bag deployment is transmitted
`
`to the SIR module. Ex. 2001 at 13:14-17; 15:18 – 16:11. In addition, this
`
`new decision (to permit air bag deployment) will be become the “previous
`
`decision.” Ex. 1004 at Fig. 5B el. 102; Ex. 2001 at 13:14-20.
`
`Petitioner reads the setting of a “previous decision” to allow
`
`deployment as setting a lock flag. Pet. at 19-20. As indicated above, the
`
`“previous decision” will be set to allow deployment whenever there are five
`
`consecutive decisions to permit same. This will occur whenever the seat
`
`sensors determine that the total weight sensed is greater than the maximum
`
`weight of an occupied infant seat.
`
`However, claim 17 requires that the lock flag be set when “the relative
`
`weight parameter is above the lock threshold,” and the lock threshold must
`
`be established “above the first threshold.” Ex. 1001 at 7:63-66. In Schousek,
`
`there is no threshold that is greater than the maximum weight of an occupied
`
`infant seat. Therefore, if the maximum weight of an occupied infant seat is
`
`deemed equivalent to the “first threshold of the relative weight parameter,”
`
`there is no lock threshold that is established “above the first threshold.”
`
`Instead, the “previous decision” will be set to allow deployment whenever
`
`there are five consecutive loops in which the total weight sensed is greater
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`than the maximum weight of an occupied infant seat. Accordingly, if
`
`Petitioner contends that the maximum weight of an occupied infant seat is
`
`equivalent to the “first threshold of the relative weight parameter” recited in
`
`claim 17, then claim 17 is not anticipated by Schousek because there is no
`
`lock threshold established “above the first threshold.” Lindemann
`
`Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1459
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1984) (The requirement that the prior art elements themselves be
`
`“arranged as in the claim” means that claims cannot be “treated . . . as mere
`
`catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-part relationships set
`
`forth in the claims and that give the claims their meaning.”). Net MoneyIN,
`
`Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[U]nless a
`
`reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of
`
`the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined
`
`in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior
`
`invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102.”).
`
`Like claim 17, claim 1 requires “establishing a lock threshold above
`
`the first threshold.” Ex. 1001 at 5:60-61. Therefore, if Petitioner contends
`
`that the maximum weight of an occupied infant seat is equivalent to the
`
`“first threshold of the relative weight parameter” recited in claim 1, then
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`claim 1 is not anticipated by Schousek for at least the same reasons set forth
`
`above.
`
`Claims 2, 3, 5, and 9 depend from claim 1, and claims 20 and 21
`
`depend from claim 17. Because each dependent claim necessarily includes
`
`the limitations of its respective parent, independent claim, 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112(d), claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 20, and 21 are not anticipated by Schousek for at
`
`least the reasons specified above.
`
`
`
`iv. Schousek Does Not Teach Setting a Lock Flag When a Relative
`Weight Parameter is Above a Lock Threshold and Air Bag
`Deployment has Been Allowed for a Given Time, as Recited in the
`Challenged Claims.
`
`As indicated above, claim 17 of the ‘007 Patent requires, inter alia,
`
`“set[ting] a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is above the lock
`
`threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given time.” Id. at 8:1-3.
`
`Schousek techs no such feature. Accordingly, claim 17 is not anticipated by
`
`Schousek.
`
`As discussed above, Schousek illustrates a fault detection scheme in
`
`Fig. 5B. Faults are detected by comparing the inhibit/no inhibit decisions
`
`reached in five consecutive loops of sensing the total weight detected by the
`
`seat sensors. Ex. 1004 at 5:51 – 6:1. If the inhibit/no inhibit decision is
`
`consistent over five consecutive loops, it is deemed correct and that
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`inhibit/no inhibit decision is forwarded to the air bag deployment module.
`
`Id. at 5:51-61. If, however, the five decisions are not the same, a previous
`
`inhibit/no inhibit decision is forwarded to the air bag deployment module
`
`and a fault is registered. Id. at 5:61-64. In other words, irrespective of the
`
`value of the stored “previous decision,” whenever the seat sensors of
`
`Schousek sense a weight such that five consecutive, common inhibit/no
`
`inhibit decisions are reached, that determination is forwarded to the air bag
`
`deployment module. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 at 14:5 – 16:11.
`
`Thus, the “previous decision” of Schousek will be set to whichever
`
`determination, inhibit / no inhibit, is reached over a set of five preceding,
`
`consistent determinations. Ex. 2001 at 16:5-10. In some instances, this will
`
`be a decision to inhibit (not allow) air bag deployment. Id. at 23:1-22.
`
`Furthermore, in circumstances where the “previous decision” of
`
`Schousek has been to inhibit air bag deployment, when the next five
`
`determinations of the total weight are such as to permit air bag deployment,
`
`that decision is forwarded to the air bag deployment module without ever
`
`consulting the “previous decision.” Id. at 24:1 - 25:2. Indeed, according to
`
`Schousek, the value of the previous deployment is irrelevant and is not
`
`consulted when a current decision to inhibit or not inhibit air bag
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`deployment is sent to the air bag deployment module. Ex. 1004 at Fig. 5B
`
`(showing els. 98 and 100 without consulting a “previous decision”).
`
`Thus, Schousek does not teach “set[ting] a lock flag when the relative
`
`weight parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been
`
`allowed for a given time,” as required by claim 17. Instead, in Schousek, the
`
`“previous decision” is set to indicate the result of five common, consecutive
`
`determinations of the seat occupant weight, and that “previous decision” is
`
`never consulted when a decision (inhibit / no inhibit) is sent to the air bag
`
`deployment module—i.e., regardless of whether deployment has been
`
`allowed for a given time. Thus, claim 17 is not anticipated by Schousek.
`
`Schering Corp., 339 F.3d at 1377.
`
`Like claim 17, claim 1 requires “setting a lock flag when the relative
`
`weight parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been
`
`allowed for a given time.” Ex. 1001 at 5:57-59. Therefore, claim 1 is not
`
`anticipated by Schousek for at least the same reasons set forth above.
`
`Claims 2, 3, 5, and 9 depend from claim 1, and claims 20 and 21
`
`depend from claim 17. Because each dependent claim necessarily includes
`
`the limitations of its respective parent, independent claim, 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112(d), claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 20, and 21 are not anticipated by Schousek for at
`
`least the reasons specified above.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`v. Schousek Does Not Teach Clearing a Lock Flag When a Relative
`Weight Parameter is Below an Unlock Threshold for a Time, as
`Recited in the Challenged Claims.
`
`As indicated above, claim 17 of the ‘007 Patent requires, inter alia,
`
`“clear[ing] the [lock] flag when the relative weight parameter is below the
`
`unlock threshold for a time.” Ex. 1001 at 8:6-7. Schousek teaches no such
`
`feature. Instead, Schousek states that a decision to inhibit deployment is sent
`
`to the air bag deployment module, and also set as a “previous decision,” not
`
`when a relative weight parameter falls below an unlock threshold for a
`
`period of time, but rather when the decision to inhibit deployment of the
`
`airbag remains unchanged over five consecutive fault monitoring loops. Ex.
`
`1004 at 5:58-61; Ex. 2001 at 16:5-11.
`
`As discussed above, a decision to inhibit deployment is made when
`
`the total weight of the seat occupant is determined to be between the
`
`minimum weight of an occupied infant seat and the maximum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat, and the center of weight distribution is forward of a
`
`seat reference line. Ex. 1004 at 2:12-46; 4:55 – 5:3; 5:23-50; Ex. 2001 at
`
`9:11 – 11:16. Thus, even though the seat is occupied, and the total weight is
`
`above the minimum weight of an occupied infant seat, air bag deployment is
`
`inhibited and that decision is set as the current decision. Ex. 1004 at 5:58-60.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Thus, claim 17 is not anticipated by Schousek. Schering Corp., 339 F.3d at
`
`1377.
`
`Like claim 17, claim 1 requires “clearing the flag when the relative
`
`weight parameter is below the unlock threshold for a time.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`5:62-63. Therefore, claim 1 is not anticipated by Schousek for at least the
`
`same reasons set forth above.
`
`Claims 2, 3, 5, and 9 depend from claim 1, and claims 20 and 21
`
`depend from claim 17. Because each dependent claim necessarily includes
`
`the limitations of its respective parent, independent claim, 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112(d), claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 20, and 21 are not anticipated by Schousek for at
`
`least the reasons specified above.
`
`
`
`B. Petitioner Has Failed to Demonstrate that Either of Claims 18
`and 19 are Obvious in View of Schousek and Blackburn.
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 18 and 19 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 in view of the combined teachings of Schousek and Blackburn, U.S.
`
`Patent 5,232,243 (Ex. 1005). Pet. at 28 et seq. In this context, Blackburn is
`
`cited for positioning sensors at certain locations in a seat cushion, id. at 30 et
`
`seq., and components of that seat. Id. at 35 et seq.
`
`Whether or not Petitioner’s allegations concerning these teachings of
`
`Blackburn are correct or not, any such combination of Schousek and
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Blackburn would still suffer from Petitioner’s flawed analyses outlined
`
`above. All of the requirements of claim 17 are included in both claims 18
`
`and 19. 35 U.S.C. § 112(d). Accordingly, the combination of Schousek and
`
`Blackburn would not suggest the subject matter of these claims for at least
`
`the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 17 and claims 18 and 19 are
`
`not obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the combined teachings of
`
`these references. CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003) (obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a
`
`claim), citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974).
`
`
`
`4. Conclusion.
`For at least the foregoing reasons, the Board should confirm the
`
`patentability of claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 17-21over Schousek and Blackburn.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`Reg. No. 41,402
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 4, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ascenda Law Group, PC
`333 W San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Email: tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`was served on January 4, 2016, by filing this document though the Patent
`Review Processing System as well as by delivering a copy via email directed
`to the attorneys of record for the Petitioner at the following address:
`Joshua A. Griswold
`Daniel Smith
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street,
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`griswold@fr.com
`IPR15625-0020IP1@fr.com
`
`
`
`The parties have agreed to electronic service in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`Dated: January 4, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reg. No. 41,402
`Ascenda Law Group, PC
`333 W San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Email: patents@ascendalaw.com
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
