IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent of: Fortune et al.
`Attorney Docket No.: 15625-0020IP1
`
`U.S. Patent No.: 6,012,007
`
`Issue Date:
`January 4, 2000
`
`Appl. Serial No.: 08/868,338
`
`Filing Date:
`June 3, 1997
`Title:
`OCCUPANT DETECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS
`FOR AIR BAG SYSTEMS
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. KIRSTEN CARR
`
`I, Kirsten Carr, of Ann Arbor, Michigan, declare that:
`
`1.
`
`I have attached my curriculum vitae as Exhibit 1 to this report. I have
`
`summarized my educational and professional background below.
`
`2.
`
`I received my B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of
`
`Michigan, Ann Arbor, in 1987 and my M.S. and Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering
`
`from the University of Illinois, Urbana, in 1990 and 1995, respectively.
`
`3.
`
`I joined Ford Motor Company in 1992, working a variety of assignments,
`
`including manufacturing research, powertrain quality, occupant safety research,
`
`and advance safety sensors. My work in advance safety sensors (2000-2004)
`
`included front impact, side impact, rollover, pre-crash, and occupant classification
`
`sensor systems. Among other tasks, I was responsible for evaluating occupant
`
`classification sensor technologies at various stages of development and delivering
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 35
`
`HN-1003
`
`1
`
`
`
`In re Patent of: Fortune et al.
`Attorney Docket No.: 15625-0020IP1
`
`U.S. Patent No.: 6,012,007
`
`Issue Date:
`January 4, 2000
`
`Appl. Serial No.: 08/868,338
`
`Filing Date:
`June 3, 1997
`Title:
`OCCUPANT DETECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS
`FOR AIR BAG SYSTEMS
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. KIRSTEN CARR
`
`I, Kirsten Carr, of Ann Arbor, Michigan, declare that:
`
`1.
`
`I have attached my curriculum vitae as Exhibit 1 to this report. I have
`
`summarized my educational and professional background below.
`
`2.
`
`I received my B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of
`
`Michigan, Ann Arbor, in 1987 and my M.S. and Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering
`
`from the University of Illinois, Urbana, in 1990 and 1995, respectively.
`
`3.
`
`I joined Ford Motor Company in 1992, working a variety of assignments,
`
`including manufacturing research, powertrain quality, occupant safety research,
`
`and advance safety sensors. My work in advance safety sensors (2000-2004)
`
`included front impact, side impact, rollover, pre-crash, and occupant classification
`
`sensor systems. Among other tasks, I was responsible for evaluating occupant
`
`classification sensor technologies at various stages of development and delivering
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 35
`
`HN-1003
`
`1
`
`
`
`sensor systems capable of meeting the new FMVSS regulations with proven
`
`implementation readiness to vehicle programs.
`
`4.
`
`I join Packer Engineering in 2006 as an expert in mechanical and
`
`manufacturing engineering with expertise in forensic analysis of mechanical
`
`components, vehicular accidents, industrial equipment, vehicle safety restraint and
`
`seat systems, and electromechanical systems. I was responsible for managing and
`
`performing mechanical and manufacturing engineering investigations and analyses
`
`for legal, insurance, and industrial firms.
`
`5.
`
`I created Carr Analysis, LLC in 2011, where I am the President and
`
`Principal Consultant and continuing my consulting work.
`
`6.
`
`I have been awarded ten (10) patents in the area of vehicle safety systems.
`
`7. My other achievement (publications, presentations, reports, and lectures) are
`
`listed on my curriculum vitae.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`I am a professional engineer registered in the State of Michigan.
`
`In writing this Declaration, I have considered the following: my own
`
`knowledge and experience, including my work experience in the fields of vehicle
`
`safety systems; my industry experience with those subjects; and my experience in
`
`working with others involved in those fields. In addition, I have analyzed the
`
`following publications and materials, in addition to other materials I cite in my
`
`declaration:
`
`Page 2 of 35
`
`2
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 and its accompanying prosecution history
`
`(“the ’007 Patent”, Ex 1001)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327 (“Schousek”, Ex. 1004)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,232,243 (“Blackburn”, Ex. 1005)
`
`10. Although for the sake of brevity this Declaration refers to selected portions
`
`of the cited references, it should be understood that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would view the references cited herein in their entirety, and in combination with
`
`other references cited herein or cited within the references themselves. The
`
`references used in this Declaration, therefore, should be viewed as being
`
`incorporated herein in their entirety.
`
`11.
`
`I am not currently and have not at any time in the past been an employee of
`
`American Honda Motor Co., Inc. I have been engaged in the present matter to
`
`provide my independent analysis of the issues raised in the petition for inter partes
`
`review of the ’007 patent. I received no compensation for this declaration beyond
`
`my normal hourly compensation based on my time actually spent studying the
`
`matter, and I will not receive any added compensation based on the outcome of this
`
`inter partes review of the ’007 patent.
`
`I.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`12.
`
`I am familiar with the content of the ’007 patent, which, I have been
`
`informed by counsel, has an earliest possible filing date of December 1, 1995
`
`Page 3 of 35
`
`3
`
`
`
`(hereinafter “the Critical Date”). Additionally, I have reviewed the other
`
`references cited above in this declaration. Counsel has informed me that I should
`
`consider these materials through the lens of one of ordinary skill in the art related
`
`to the ’007 patent at the time of the invention. I believe one of ordinary skill
`
`around December 1, 1995 would have had a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical
`
`Engineering with experience in computer programming and several years of
`
`experience in vehicle safety systems or the like. Alternatively, this individual
`
`could have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer
`
`Engineering, or Computer Science with experience in the mechanical arts in
`
`addition to the experience described above. Individuals with additional education
`
`or additional industrial experience could still be of ordinary skill in the art if that
`
`additional aspect compensates for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the
`
`requirements stated above. I base my evaluation of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`this art on my own personal experience, including my knowledge of students,
`
`colleagues, and related professionals at the time of interest.
`
`13. My findings, as explained below, are based on my education, experience,
`
`and background over the last 30 years as discussed above.
`
`II.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`14.
`
`I understand that, for the purposes of my analysis in this matter, the claims
`
`of the ‘007 Patent must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
`
`Page 4 of 35
`
`4
`
`
`
`with the specification. Stated another way, it is contemplated that the claims are
`
`understood by their plain and ordinary meanings except where construed in the
`
`specification. I also understand that this “plain and ordinary meaning” is with
`
`respect to how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the claim language. I
`
`have followed these principles in my analysis. In a few instances, I have discussed
`
`my understanding of the claims in the relevant paragraphs below.
`
`III.
`
`Schousek
`
`15. Schousek teaches a vehicle restraint system having a controller for
`
`deploying air bags that selectively allows deployment according to the outputs of
`
`seat sensors responding to the weight of an occupant. Schousek describes an “air
`
`bag restraint system [that] is equipped with [a] seat occupant sensing apparatus for
`
`a passenger seat which detects both infant seats and adults and distinguishes
`
`between and forward facing infant seats.” Ex. 1004, Abstract. Schousek states
`
`that “the sensing apparatus comprises eight variable resistance pressure sensors in
`
`the seat cushion.” Id. A “microprocessor” monitors “the response of each sensor
`
`to occupant pressure,” and calculates a “total weight and weight distribution” for
`
`an occupant of the seat. Id. Schousek describes that the detected weight from the
`
`seat sensors “is used to discriminate between an occupied infant seat, an adult and
`
`no occupant,” and that the “weight distribution is used to distinguish between
`
`forward and rear facing infant seats.” Id.
`
`Page 5 of 35
`
`5
`
`
`
`16. Schousek further describes that if the microprocessor determines that “the
`
`total weight parameter is greater than the maximum infant seat weight <72> this
`
`indicates that a larger occupant is present and a decision is made to allow
`
`deployment <74>.” Id. at 5:32-35. If the microprocessor determines that “the total
`
`weight parameter is less than the minimum weight threshold for an occupied infant
`
`seat <76> it is determined that the seat is empty and a decision is made to inhibit
`
`deployment <78>.” Id. at 5:36-39. This process is shown in FIG. 5A of Schousek,
`
`which is reproduced below:
`
`Page 6 of 35
`
`6
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004, FIG. 5A
`
`
`
`17.
`
` Schousek also teaches determining measures represented by individual
`
`sensor outputs and calculating from the sensor outputs a relative weight parameter.
`
`Schousek states that “the sensing apparatus comprises eight variable resistance
`
`pressure sensors in the seat cushion.” Id. A “microprocessor” monitors “the
`
`Page 7 of 35
`
`7
`
`
`
`response of each sensor to occupant pressure,” and calculates a “total weight”
`
`parameter for an occupant of the seat from these sensor outputs. Id. This total
`
`weight parameter is calculated by reading the “current voltage” produced by each
`
`individual sensor, “subtract[ing]” this voltage “from [a] calibration voltage” set for
`
`each sensor that represents the “voltage for an empty seat condition” (a baseline
`
`voltage), and summing these “measured voltage differences.” Id. at 4:51-59.
`
`Schousek describes that “[t]he difference voltage then is a function of the pressure
`
`exerted on the sensor and is empirically related to actual occupant weight” and that
`
`“the sum of measured voltage differences. . . . represents occupant weight[.]” Id.
`
`at 4:56-60. Hence, the total weight parameter is a measure of the force applied to
`
`the sensor relative to a calibrated value representing the amount of force detected
`
`when the seat is unoccupied. This baseline amount of force may be a product of,
`
`for example, the tension created by the seat cover fabric stretched over the seat
`
`cushion and sensor creating a pressure on them or other forces. Therefore, the total
`
`weight parameter is calculated from the sensor outputs and is a relative
`
`representation of the seat occupant’s weight.
`
`18. Schousek further discloses establishing a first threshold of the relative
`
`weight parameter. Schousek details how to establish a “minimum weight
`
`threshold” based on “the minimum weight of an occupied infant seat (about 10
`
`pounds)[.]” Id. at 5:36-37, 2:31-34. The reference further states that the minimum
`
`Page 8 of 35
`
`8
`
`
`
`weight threshold is “compared to the measured total weight parameter” (as
`
`described above) “to determine whether the vehicle seat is holding an occupied
`
`infant seat . . . or has no occupant.” Id. at 2:34-38.
`
`19.
`
` Schousek also teaches allowing deployment when the relative weight
`
`parameter is above the first threshold. As previously discussed, Schousek teaches
`
`a relative weight parameter (the total weight parameter) and a first threshold (the
`
`minimum infant seat weight threshold). Schousek describes at least two cases in
`
`which deployment of the air bag is allowed when the total weight parameter is
`
`above the minimum infant weight threshold, both of which are discussed below.
`
`20.
`
`In the first case, Schousek describes that “[i]f the total weight parameter is
`
`greater than the maximum infant seat weight . . . this indicates that a larger
`
`occupant is present and a decision is made to allow deployment[.]” Id. at 5:32-35.
`
`FIG. 5A from Schousek shows this process:
`
`Ex. 1004, detail of FIG 5A
`
`
`
`The “maximum infant seat weight” represents the “maximum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat (50 pounds)” and is greater than the minimum infant seat
`
`weight threshold defined by Schousek as “about 10 pounds.” Id. at 2:31-34.
`
`Page 9 of 35
`
`9
`
`
`
`Hence, a total weight parameter greater than the maximum infant seat weight
`
`threshold would be above the minimum infant seat weight threshold and would
`
`result in a decision to allow deployment.
`
`21.
`
`In the second case, Schousek teaches “[i]f the total weight parameter is
`
`between” the two weight thresholds described above, “the occupant is identified as
`
`an occupied infant seat or a small child[.]” Id. at 5:42-44. Schousek describes that
`
`“[i]f the center of weight distribution is not forward of the reference line, a forward
`
`facing infant seat is detected and a decision is made to allow deployment of the air
`
`bag[.]” Id. at 5:47-50. This process is shown in FIG. 5A:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004, detail of FIG. 5A
`
`Page 10 of 35
`
`10
`
`
`
`22. Schousek thus describes that if the total weight parameter is greater than the
`
`minimum infant seat weight but less than the maximum infant seat weight,
`
`deployment of the airbag is selectively allowed according to the weight distribution
`
`detected by the sensors.
`
`23. Schousek also teaches establishing a lock threshold above the first threshold.
`
`As described above, Schousek describes a “maximum infant seat threshold” that is
`
`greater than a “minimum infant seat threshold.” See Id. at 2:31-32, 5:32-39. This
`
`maximum infant seat weight is a lock threshold because of the allow/inhibit
`
`deployment decision locking procedure (described in detail below). See Id. at
`
`5:55-58.
`
`24. Schousek teaches setting a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is
`
`above the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given time.
`
`Schousek describes that the allow/inhibit deployment decision “made in each
`
`execution loop is stored in an array” and if less than five decisions have been
`
`stored, “a decision counter is incremented” until a total of five consecutive
`
`decisions have been made and stored. Id. at 5:53-56. Once the decision counter
`
`reaches five, “the counter is cleared <96> and the decisions are compared [.]” Id.
`
`at 5:55-58. If all five values in the decision array “are the same, the current
`
`decision is transmitted to” a supplemental inflatable restraint (SIR) module
`
`controlling airbag deployment, and “the current decision is labelled as the previous
`
`Page 11 of 35
`
`11
`
`
`
`decision[.]” Id. at 5:59-62. If all five decisions in the array “are not the same, the
`
`previous decision is retransmitted to the” SIR module. Id. at 5:61-63. The
`
`previous decision, therefore, functions as a lock flag for the allow/inhibit
`
`deployment decision since the previous decision persists (i.e., is locked) until five
`
`consecutive opposite decisions are stored together in the decision array.
`
`Accordingly, Schousek teaches setting the previous decision (a lock flag) if the
`
`same allow/inhibit deployment decision from five consecutive cycles has been
`
`stored together in the decision array. See Id. at 5:53-61. One of the allow/inhibit
`
`deployment decisions stored in the array is the decision to allow deployment if the
`
`total weight parameter (the relative weight parameter) is above the maximum
`
`infant weight threshold (the lock threshold). See Id. at 5:53-55. Hence, a lock flag
`
`is set when the total weight parameter is above the lock threshold (maximum infant
`
`weight threshold) and deployment allowed for a given time.
`
`25. Schousek also discloses establishing an unlock threshold at a level indicative
`
`of an empty seat. In particular, Schousek describes that the “minimum infant seat
`
`threshold” is used to determine whether the seat is empty, stating that “if the total
`
`weight parameter is less than the minimum weight threshold for an occupied infant
`
`seat <76> it is determined that the seat is empty[.]” Id. at 5:36-39.
`
`26. Schousek teaches clearing the flag when the relative weight parameter is
`
`below the unlock threshold for a time. As previously described above at ¶ 24,
`
`Page 12 of 35
`
`12
`
`
`
`Schousek describes that each allow/inhibit deployment decision is stored in an
`
`array and the decision is locked once five consecutive matching decisions are
`
`present. One of the allow/inhibit deployment decisions stored in the decision array
`
`is the decision to inhibit deployment if the total weight parameter (the relative
`
`weight parameter) is below the minimum infant weight threshold (the unlock
`
`threshold). See Id. at 5:36-39. Accordingly, Schousek teaches updating the
`
`previous decision to “inhibit deployment” (clearing the lock flag) if a decision to
`
`inhibit deployment (i.e., because the total weight parameter is less than the
`
`minimum infant seat weight threshold) has been made during five consecutive
`
`cycles and stored together in the decision array. See Id. at 5:53-61. Hence, the
`
`lock flag is cleared when the total weight parameter is below the unlock threshold
`
`(minimum infant seat weight threshold) for a given time.
`
`27. Schousek discloses allowing deployment while the lock flag is set. As
`
`discussed above, Schousek describes that the previous decision (the lock flag) will
`
`be set to “allow deployment” until five consecutive “inhibit deployment” decisions
`
`are stored together in the decision array, and that if all five decisions in the array
`
`“are not the same, the previous decision is retransmitted to the” SIR module. Id. at
`
`5:61-63. Accordingly, the previous decision of “allow deployment” will be sent to
`
`the SIR module, thereby allowing deployment, while the previous decision (the
`
`lock flag) is set to the value of “allow deployment” (i.e. until an “inhibit
`
`Page 13 of 35
`
`13
`
`
`
`deployment” decision is received for five consecutive cycles that are stored
`
`together).
`
`28. Schousek discloses establishing a second threshold of the relative weight
`
`parameter. Schousek describes that the “minimum infant seat threshold” is used to
`
`determine whether the seat is empty, stating that “if the total weight parameter is
`
`less than the minimum weight threshold for an occupied infant seat <76> it is
`
`determined that the seat is empty[.]” Id. at 5:36-39.
`
`29. Schousek discloses inhibiting deployment when the relative weight
`
`parameter is below the second threshold. As previously discussed, the total weight
`
`parameter of Schousek is a relative weight parameter and the minimum infant seat
`
`weight threshold is the second threshold. Schousek describes that “if the total
`
`weight parameter is less than the minimum weight threshold for an occupied infant
`
`seat <76> it is determined that the seat is empty and a decision is made to inhibit
`
`deployment <78>.” Id. at 5:36-39. Hence, deployment is inhibited when the
`
`weight parameter is below the second threshold.
`
`30. Schousek discloses that the relative weight parameter is the total force
`
`detected by all the sensors. Schousek describes a process of “determin[ing] a force
`
`for each sensor” and “summ[ing] to obtain a total force or weight parameter.” Id.
`
`at 5:30-31.
`
`Page 14 of 35
`
`14
`
`
`
`31. Schousek discloses that the relative weight parameter is a load rating
`
`obtained by calculating a load rating for each sensor as a function of the difference
`
`between the sensor output and a base value. Schousek describes that the total
`
`weight parameter (the relative weight parameter) is calculated by reading a
`
`“current voltage” produced by each sensor and “subtract[ing]” the current voltage
`
`“from [a] calibration voltage” set for each sensor representing a base value of the
`
`“voltage for an empty seat condition.” Id. at 4:51-56. This voltage difference is a
`
`calculated load rating for each sensor.
`
`32. Schousek discloses summing the load rating for all the sensors to derive a
`
`total load rating. Schousek states that for each sensor, “[t]he difference voltage
`
`then is a function of the pressure exerted on the sensor and is empirically related to
`
`actual occupant weight,” and that “the sum of measured voltage differences. . . .
`
`represents occupant weight[.]” Id. at 4:58-60.
`
`33. Schousek discloses that a step of allowing deployment is a preliminary allow
`
`decision and final deployment consent is attained by long term filtering of the
`
`allow decision. As previously discussed, Schousek describes that a previous
`
`allow/inhibit deployment decision is used until five consecutive matching
`
`decisions are stored together in a decision array. Therefore, if the previous
`
`decision is to inhibit deployment, each decision to allow deployment stored in the
`
`decision array is a preliminary allow decision until five consecution decisions to
`
`Page 15 of 35
`
`15
`
`
`
`allow deployment are present together in the decision array, after which the
`
`decision to allow deployment will take effect. See Id. at 5:51-63. Schousek
`
`comments on how this program filters out occasional spurious decisions. See Id. at
`
`6:2-5.
`
`IV.
`
`Schousek in view of Blackburn
`
`34. Blackburn teaches an occupant seat including a resilient pad (bottom
`
`cushion) that supports the occupant on its top surface and is itself supported by a
`
`mounting on its bottom surface. Blackburn describes the preferred “occupant seat
`
`234 with which the occupant restraint system 220 is used” as “a passenger seat in
`
`the vehicle.” Ex. 1005, 9:39-43. The occupant seat 234 shown in FIG.9 includes a
`
`bottom cushion and a support mounting positioned below the bottom surface of the
`
`bottom cushion 262. FIG. 9 of Blackburn shows the occupant seat 234:
`
`Occupant
`seating area
`(top surface)
`
`Bottom
`cushion 262
`(resilient pad)
`Position
`and weight
`sensor 260
`in bottom
`cushion
`
`Occupant
`seat 234
`
`Support mounting
`the bottom surface
`
`
`Ex. 1005, detail of FIG. 9 (annotated)
`
`Page 16 of 35
`
`16
`
`
`
`35. Blackburn discloses the sensors arranged in an array on the bottom surface
`
`of the bottom cushion. Blackburn details “a passenger seat in the vehicle” that
`
`includes “an occupant position and weight sensor 260 located in the bottom
`
`cushion 262 of the seat 234.” Ex. 1005, 9:39-43. Blackburn describes “the
`
`occupant position and weight sensor 260” as including “an N X M array of
`
`individual position sensors 300 and individual weight sensors 302.” Id. at 10:21-
`
`23 (emphasis added). FIG 9, shown in the above section, shows the sensor located
`
`on the bottom surface of the cushion. FIG. 10 shows the array:
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 10
`
`
`
`36. Blackburn discloses another support mounting for the bottom surface of the
`
`bottom cushion. Blackburn describes the sensor as including a housing with a “top
`
`Page 17 of 35
`
`17
`
`
`
`cover plate” and “a bottom support plate 92” that “is rigidly mounted to a
`
`substantially inflexible bottom portion of the seat[.]” Ex. 1005, 3:66-4:2.
`
`Additionally, “[t]he bottom plate 92 is rigidly secured relative to the vehicle floor.”
`
`Id. at 4:56-58, FIG. 3. FIG. 3 of Blackburn shows this configuration:
`
`Ex. 1005 (Blackburn), FIG. 3.
`
`
`
`As discussed in the previous section, the sensor is located on the bottom surface of
`
`the bottom cushion. Hence, the bottom support plate of the sensor is a support
`
`mounting for the cushion
`
`37. Blackburn further discloses including a panel in the support for the bottom
`
`surface of the bottom cushion and arranging the array of seat sensors between the
`
`cushion bottom surface and the panel. Although the above disclosure and FIG. 3
`
`describe features of the occupant sensor 60, Blackburn describes that the sensor
`
`array 260 includes a “bottom plate 312” that is configured identically to the bottom
`
`plate 92 of the sensor 60, and that supports each of the occupant sensors 300 and
`
`Page 18 of 35
`
`18
`
`
`
`weight sensors 302 in the array. See Id. at 10:30-67. FIG. 11 shows the array
`
`including the bottom plate 312:
`
`Weight
`sensor 302
`
`Bottom plate
`312 (panel)
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, detail of FIG. 11 (annotated)
`
`The weight sensors 302 are mounted to the bottom plate 312, which provides the
`
`support required for the sensors to respond to the downward force of an occupant’s
`
`weight. See Blackburn at 10:66-68, 11:23-35. Further, the bottom plate 312 is
`
`rigidly secured relative to the vehicle floor and positioned beneath the bottom
`
`surface of the seat cushion 262. See Id. at 4:56-58, 10:30-67. Hence, the bottom
`
`plate 312 of the sensor 260 is a panel that supports the bottom surface of the seat
`
`cushion. Additionally, the array of sensors mounted onto the top of the bottom
`
`plate, are located between the bottom plate (panel) and the cushion bottom surface.
`
`38.
`
`In my opinion, one of skill in the art as of the Critical Date would have
`
`modified the occupant sensing air bag control system of Schousek to implement
`
`the sensor configuration of Blackburn, because the combination amounts to simple
`
`Page 19 of 35
`
`19
`
`
`
`substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
`
`Blackburn describes “[a]n occupant sensing apparatus for use in an occupant
`
`restraint system” including “an array of sensors located” on the bottom surface of a
`
`seat cushion connected to a “controller.” Id. at Abstract, FIG 9, 9:41-43, 10:21-23,
`
`10:3-6. This is similar to the “air bag restraint system [that] is equipped with [a]
`
`seat occupant sensing apparatus” including “eight variable resistance pressure
`
`sensors in the seat cushion” of Schousek. See Ex. 1004, Abstract. Blackburn
`
`teaches the particular configuration of seat sensors described above. One of skill
`
`in the art would have been motivated to use the techniques described in Blackburn
`
`to allow Schousek to enable airbag deployment based on weight measurements
`
`from an array of sensors on the bottom surface of a seat cushion. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1005, FIG. 10. The results of such a combination would have been predictable,
`
`because the sensor array and its location in the seat of Blackburn would perform
`
`the same function (detecting occupant weight) in the same way (by measuring
`
`downward force exerted by the occupant of the seat) as the seat sensor
`
`configuration described in Schousek. See Ex. 1004, 3:64-4:22, 5:26-50; Ex. 1005,
`
`9:39-43,14:55-15:48.
`
`V.
`
`Blackburn
`
`39. Blackburn discloses a vehicle restraint system having a controller for
`
`deploying air bags that selectively allows deployment according to the outputs of
`
`Page 20 of 35
`
`20
`
`
`
`seat sensors responding to the weight of an occupant. Blackburn discloses “[a]n
`
`occupant sensing apparatus for use in an occupant restraint system[.]” Ex. 1005,
`
`Abstract. The apparatus includes “an array of sensors located” in a vehicle seat
`
`connected to a “controller.” Id. at Abstract, 9:41-43, 10:21-23, 10:3-6. The
`
`controller uses the outputs of the sensors to “determine[] the occupant's position
`
`and weight and controls deployment of the occupant restraint system in response to
`
`the determined position and weight.” Id. at Abstract, 10:6-10.
`
`40. Blackburn teaches determining measures represented by individual sensor
`
`outputs and calculating from the sensor outputs a relative weight parameter.
`
`Blackburn describes a sensor 260 with a “top plate 314” that “is made from a
`
`material that flexes in response to an applied load or force.” Ex. 1005, 11:10-12.
`
`“The amount of flexure at any point on the” top “plate 314 is a function of the
`
`weight of the occupant at the corresponding location on the seat cushion 262.” Id.
`
`at 11:12-15. Blackburn discloses that “the top plate has a plurality of contact arms
`
`extending downward toward a bottom plate.” Ex. 1005, 10:46-47. Each contact
`
`arm is associated with an individual sensor and is located over that sensor’s
`
`sensing film mounted to the bottom plate. Ex. 1005 10:46-11:9. When a downward
`
`force is applied to the sensor (e.g., when an occupant sits in the seat), the top plate
`
`flexes, causing each individual “contact arm 334” to contact “its associated film,”
`
`Page 21 of 35
`
`21
`
`
`
`producing an “output signal” “that varies as a function of the occupant's weight at
`
`that location.” Id. at 10:66-11:18.
`
`41. Blackburn further describes sensor 260 as including “an N X M array of
`
`individual position sensors 300 and individual weight sensors 302” within a
`
`vehicle seat, as shown in FIG. 10. Id. at 10:21-23:
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 10
`
`
`
`42. Blackburn teaches that “[b]y monitoring the sensors 302” in the sensor array
`
`“the weight of the occupant on the seat 234 can be determined[.]” Id. at 11:18-19.
`
`This determined weight is a relative weight relative parameter because it represents
`
`a measurement of weight calculated from the output of individual sensors in the
`
`array. See Id.
`
`Page 22 of 35
`
`22
`
`
`
`43. Blackburn discloses establishing a first threshold of the relative weight
`
`parameter. As previously discussed, Blackburn specifies the weight value
`
`determined from the array of weight sensors as a relative weight parameter.
`
`Blackburn also teaches that each sensor is “designed so that a predetermined
`
`amount of weight must first be applied to the seat cushion before the arms contact
`
`their associated films.” Id. at 11:22-23. Blackburn describes how “the sensor
`
`outputs are scanned by the microcontroller” to determine “whether an object is
`
`present in the seat.” Id. at 13:31-33. Blackburn states that “any of the sensors” in
`
`the array, including the weight sensors, can “provide an indication of whether an
`
`object is in the seat.” Id. at 13:34-37. Hence, a first threshold is the weight value
`
`indicative of an object in the seat.
`
`44. Blackburn discloses allowing deployment when the relative weight
`
`parameter is above the first threshold. Blackburn describes a process for
`
`determining whether the air bag deployment is enabled (allowed) or disabled
`
`(inhibited). See Id. at 13:26-15:58, FIGS. 20-22. The process begins by
`
`initializing settings and “initially enabling the airbag.” Ex. 1005 13:28-30. The
`
`process includes making “a determination as to whether an object is present in the
`
`seat,” which, as discussed above, includes comparing the weight determined from
`
`the sensors to the first threshold. Id. at 13:31-37. Blackburn describes that the
`
`airbag is enable when the weight value is above the first threshold (indicative of an
`
`Page 23 of 35
`
`23
`
`
`
`object in the seat) and the seat is occupied by a human. Id. at 13:58-60. FIG. 20
`
`from Blackburn shows this process:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, detail of FIG. 20 (annotated)
`
`45. Blackburn describes that the process then determines whether and how to
`
`deploy the airbag based on the occupant’s determined weight and position in the
`
`seat. See Id. at 13:67-15:48. For example, if air bag deployment is enabled and
`
`the occupant’s weight is determined to be “approximately [that] of a theoretical 3
`
`year old,” the air bag is deployed and “75% of all gas discharged by one gas source
`
`is dumped via its associated vent valve[.]” Id. at 14:61-67. Blackburn further
`
`teaches that all “weight-based determinations … will be based on the determined
`
`weight of the occupant being within a range of weights, rather [than] equal to a
`
`specific weight.” Ex. 1005 14:61-65.
`
`Page 24 of 35
`
`24
`
`
`
`46. Blackburn renders obvious establishing a lock threshold above the first
`
`threshold. As previously mentioned, the process begins by initializing settings and
`
`“initially enabling the airbag.” Ex. 1005 13:28-30. Blackburn describes that if the
`
`seat is determined to be unoccupied, “a value N,” which is initialized to zero at the
`
`beginning of the process, “is set equal to N + 1” and “a determination is made as to
`
`whether N is equal to 10.” Id. at 13:40-45. If N is not equal to 10, “the process
`
`then loops back” and the weight values from the sensor array are read again. Id. at
`
`13:45-46. Once the process has repeated 10 times and the value of N equals 10,
`
`“the airbag is disabled.” Id. at 13:47-49. The weight threshold that is used to
`
`determine whether the seat is occupied is thus a lock threshold, because air bag
`
`deployment is locked as enabled (allowed) for a period of time (e.g., 10 cycles) at
`
`process initialization and whenever this threshold is exceeded. See Id. at 13:40-48.
`
`FIG. 20 from Blackburn shows this process:
`
`Page 25 of 35
`
`25
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, detail of FIG. 20
`
`
`
`47. Establishing the lock threshold as a value above the first threshold would
`
`have been obvious to one of skill in the art as of the Critical Date because
`
`controlling deployment of air bag systems according to different weight ranges and
`
`thresholds was well-known in the art at the time of the ’007 Patent. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1004, 5:42-50; Ex. 1005, 14:55-15:48. Further, the desirability of locking an
`
`enable deployment decision for a period of time, as taught by Blackburn, based on
`
`a seat weight measurement above that indicative of an occupied seat was also
`
`known in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 6:2-5.
`
`48. Blackburn discloses setting a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is
`
`above the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given time. As
`
`discussed above, Blackburn describes that a decision to keep the airbag enabled is
`
`Page 26 of 35
`
`26
`
`
`
`made when the weight value from the sensors is above the lock threshold. This
`
`airbag enable decision teaches a lock flag because it indicates that deployment has
`
`been allowed for a time, and because it persists for a time. See Ex. 1005, 13:40-50,
`
`13:59-60.
`
`49.
`
` Blackburn discloses establishing an
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
