`
`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
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`CORRECTED PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED
`STATES PATENT NO. 6,012,007 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319, 37
`C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`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) ...................... 4
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 103 ......................................... 4
`
`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. The Effective Priority Date of the ’007 Patent ......................................... 6
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 7
`
`V. AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ’007 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE ................................................................................................... 8
`A. GROUND 1 – Claim 1-3, 5, 9, 17, 20, and 21 are unpatentable over
`Schousek under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ..................................................................... 8
`1. Overview of Schousek .................................................................... 9
`B. GROUND 2 – Claims 18-19 are unpatentable over Schousek in view of
`Blackburn under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................. 28
`1. Overview of Blackburn ................................................................. 29
`Reasons to combine Schousek and Blackburn .................................. 31
`C. GROUND 3 - Claim 1-3, 5, and 17-21 are unpatentable over Blackburn
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................... 37
`D. GROUND 4 – Claim 1-3, 5, and 17-21 are unpatentable over Blackburn
`in view of Schousek under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................. 53
`Reasons to combine Blackburn and Schousek .................................. 57
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 59
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Honda-1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 to Fortune et al. (“the ’007 Patent”)
`
`Honda-1002
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’007 Patent (“the
`Prosecution History”)
`
`Honda-1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Kirsten M. Carr re the ’007 Patent
`
`Honda-1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327 (“Schousek”)
`
`Honda-1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,232,243 (“Blackburn”)
`
`Honda-1006
`
`Joint Claim Construction Brief , Signal IP v. American Honda
`Motor Co., et al., Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM, Document 46
`(Joint Claim Construction Brief)
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Honda”) petitions for
`
`Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of
`
`claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 17-21 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,012,007 (“the ’007 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 teachings 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: 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 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
`
`1
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`Michigan, filed on September 26, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v.
`
`Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Case No. 2-14-cv-03114, 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. 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. 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. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Case No. 2-
`
`14-cv-03108, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed
`
`on April 23, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Volvo Cars of North
`
`America, LLC, Case No. 2-14-cv-03107, 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. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al., Case No. 2-14-cv-
`
`03109, 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.,
`
`2
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`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. Subaru of
`
`America, Inc., Case No. 2-14-cv-02963, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
`
`District of California, filed on April 17, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v.
`
`Suzuki Motor of America, Inc., Case No. 8-14-cv-00607, in the U.S. District Court
`
`for the Central District of California, filed on April 17, 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; 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. 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.
`
`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. 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. 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; and Takata Seat Belts In v.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`Delphi Automotive Sys, 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 IPR15625-0020IP1@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.
`
`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 ’007 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
`
`4
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`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 Exhibit Honda-1003, the Declaration of Dr. Kirsten M. Carr (“Carr”),
`
`referenced throughout this Petition.
`
`’007 Patent Claims
`Ground
`Ground 1 1-3, 5, 9, 17, 20, 21
`
`Ground 2 18-19
`
`Ground 3 1-3, 5, 17-21
`
`Ground 4 1-3, 5, 17-21
`
`
`
`Basis for Rejection
`Anticipated by Schousek under 35
`U.S.C. § 102
`Obvious over Schousek in view of
`Blackburn under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`Obvious over Blackburn under 35
`U.S.C. § 103
`Obvious over Blackburn in view of
`Schousek under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`The ’007 Patent issued on January 4, 2000, from application no. 08/868,338
`
`(Honda 1002), which was filed June 3, 1997. The ’007 Patent is a continuation-in-
`
`part of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 (the “’375 Patent”), which was filed December
`
`1, 1995. As discussed in detail in Section III.C below, the claims of the ’007
`
`Patent are not supported by the earlier ’375 Patent, and thus are not entitled to the
`
`earlier priority date. Therefore, the earliest possible priority date of the ’007 Patent
`5
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`is June 3, 1997 (hereinafter “the Critical Date”).
`
`Schousek (U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327, Exhibit Honda-1004) qualifies as
`
`prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Schousek issued from a U.S.
`
`application filed on December 12, 1995, more than one year before the Critical
`
`Date, and thus is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Blackburn (U.S. Patent No. 5,232,243, Exhibit Honda-1005) 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 Critical Date, and thus is prior art at least
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`C. The Effective Priority Date of the ’007 Patent
`The Challenged Claims of the ’007 Patent include subject matter not
`
`supported by the application to which the patent claims priority, and therefore are
`
`not entitled to the earlier claimed priority date of December 1, 1995.
`
`The ’007 Patent issued based on an application filed June 3, 1997. See Ex.
`
`1001 (’007 Patent), Face; see Ex. 1002 (’007 Prosecution History). The ’007
`
`Patent is a continuation-in-part of the ’375 Patent which was filed on December 1,
`
`1995. See Ex. 1001, Face. The ’007 Patent originally did not claim priority back
`
`to the ’375 Patent. See Ex. 1002, June 3, 1997 Original Application, at 1. The
`
`examiner rejected the independent claims as being “unpatentable over” the ’375
`
`Patent. See id., April 9, 1999, at 2-5. In response, the Patent Owner amended the
`
`6
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`application to include the priority claim and argued that the ’007 Patent was
`
`“entitled to be considered as a continuation-in-part of the” ’375 Patent. See id.,
`
`July 9, 1999, at 3-4. The Patent Owner further argued that the claims of the patent
`
`“recite subject matter that is neither shown nor suggested” in the ’375 Patent. See
`
`id. at 3 (emphasis added). In particular, the Patent Owner admitted that the ’375
`
`Patent does not describe “the steps of (1) establishing a lock threshold above the
`
`normal allow threshold, (2) setting a lock flag when the total force or relative
`
`weight parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for
`
`a given time, (3) clearing the lock flag when the total force or relative weight
`
`parameter is below an empty seat threshold for a time, and (4) allowing
`
`deployment while the lock flag is set” as recited in the independent claims of the
`
`’007 Patent. Id. at Applicant Arguments and Remarks Made in the June 9, 1999
`
`Amendment, Pg. 4. Accordingly, Petitioner submits that the claims of the ’007
`
`Patent are not entitled to the earlier filing date of the ’375 Patent, and that the
`
`earliest effective filing date of the ’007 Patent is June 3, 1997 (its actual filing
`
`date).
`
`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
`
`7
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`in the claims of the ’007 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 ’007
`
`Patent is not an admission by Petitioner that that claim term is met by any feature
`
`for infringement purposes.
`
`Petitioner also maintains that several terms in the claims of ’007 Patent are
`
`indefinite, but since issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112 may not be raised in Inter Partes
`
`Review proceedings, Petitioner has attempted to interpret all claim terms.
`
`Petitioner expressly reserves the right to raise the issue of indefiniteness should the
`
`issue arise in this or other proceedings.
`
`V. AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ’007 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE
`A. GROUND 1 – Claim 1-3, 5, 9, 17, 20, and 21 are unpatentable over
`Schousek under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`8
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`1. Overview of Schousek
`
`Schousek describes “[a]n air bag restraint system is equipped with seat
`
`occupant sensing apparatus for a passenger seat which detects both infant seats and
`
`adults and distinguishes between rear and forward facing infant seats.” Ex. 1004,
`
`Abstract. “Air bag deployment is inhibited . . . . when an occupied rear facing
`
`infant seat is present.” Id.
`
`The ’007 Patent discusses Schousek in its Background section, stating that
`
`Schousek describes “incorporat[ing] pressure sensors in the passenger seat and
`
`monitor[ing] the response of the sensors by a microprocessor to evaluate the
`
`weight and weight distribution, and for inhibiting deployment in certain cases.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:35-38. The ’007 Patent characterizes Schousek as “a foundation for
`
`[its] invention” but states that “[i]t is desirable, however to provide a system which
`
`is particularly suited for discriminating between heavy and light occupants and for
`
`robust operation under dynamic conditions such as occupant shifting or bouncing
`
`due to rough roads,” thereby implying that these features are absent in Schousek.
`
`Id. at 1:43-48 (emphasis added). However, as described in detail below, Schousek
`
`describes techniques for discriminating between heavy and light objects (e.g.,
`
`between infants and adults) and for “filtering out . . . occasional spurious [air bag
`
`enablement] decisions, which may be due to occupant movement or other
`
`instability[.]” Ex. 1004, 6:2-5 (emphasis added).
`
`9
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`The following sections provide example disclosure from Schousek that
`
`anticipates claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 17-21 of the ’007 Patent, as well as explanations of
`
`how each portion of the reference applies to each limitation of the claims.
`
`Claim 1
`
`The following claim chart identifies example disclosure in Schousek that
`
`teaches the elements of claim 1:
`
`Claim Language
`[1.0]: “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”
`[1.1]: “determining measures represented by
`individual sensor outputs and calculating from the
`sensor outputs a relative weight parameter”
`[1.2]: “establishing a first threshold of the relative
`weight parameter”
`[1.3]: “allowing deployment when the relative
`weight parameter is above the first threshold”
`
`[1.4]: “establishing a lock threshold above the first
`threshold”
`
`[1.5]: “setting a lock flag when the relative weight
`parameter is above the lock threshold and
`deployment has been allowed for a given time”
`[1.6]: “establishing an unlock threshold at a level
`indicative of an empty seat”
`[1.7]: “clearing the flag when the relative weight
`parameter is below the unlock threshold for a time”
`
`10
`
`Schousek
`See, e.g., 5:32-39, FIG. 5A;
`Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 15-16.
`
`See, e.g., Abstract, 4:51-60;
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 17.
`
`See, e.g., 2:31-38, 5:35-37;
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 18.
`See, e.g., Abstract, 2:31-34,
`5:35-50, FIG. 5A; Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 19-22, Ground 1, [1.1]-
`[1.2], supra
`See, e.g., 2:31-34, 3:32-39,
`5:32-39 & 55-58; Ex. 1003
`¶ 23, Ground 1, [1.3], supra
`See, e.g., 5:53-63, 6:2-5; Ex.
`1003 ¶ 24, Ground 1, [1.1],
`[1.4], supra
`See, e.g., 5:36-39; Ex. 1003,
`¶ 25.
`See, e.g., 5:53-63; Ex. 1003
`¶ 26, Ground 1 [1.4], [1.6],
`supra
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`Claim Language
`[1.8]: “allowing deployment while the lock flag is
`set”
`
`Schousek
`See, e.g.,5:36-39, 53-63; Ex.
`1003 ¶ 27, Ground 1 [1.5] -
`[1.7], supra
`[1.0]: “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”
`As a threshold matter, in the present paper, 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, Schousek still teaches the limitations stated in the preamble of claim 1.
`
`Petitioner also submits that the language “means for selectively allowing
`
`deployment according to the outputs of seat sensors responding to the weight of an
`
`occupant” in claim 1 should be interpreted as a mean-plus-function limitation
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. The corresponding structure described in the ’007 that
`
`performs the function of “selectively allowing deployment according to the outputs
`
`of seat sensors responding to the weight of an occupant” is the “microprocessor
`
`22” which “analyzes the sensor inputs and issues a decision whether to inhibit” or
`
`allow “air bag deployment” based on the algorithms of Figures 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10.
`
`See Ex. 1001, 3:4-7; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 15-16.
`
`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,
`11
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`Abstract (emphasis added). Schousek states that “the sensing apparatus comprises
`
`eight variable resistance pressure sensors in the seat cushion.” Id. (emphasis
`
`added). 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. (emphasis added). 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. (emphasis added). Ex. 1003, ¶
`
`15.
`
`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
`
`(emphasis added). Further, 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 (emphasis added). This process is shown in
`
`FIG. 5A of Schousek, Ex. 1003, ¶ 16:
`
`12
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`Microprocessor
`calculates weight
`and weight
`distribution from
`sensor outputs
`
`Air bag
`deployment
`allowed
`
`Air bag
`deployment
`inhibited
`
`Air bag
`enablement
`decisions
`based on
`weight from
`sensors
`
`Ex. 1004, FIG. 5A (annotated)
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the air bag restraint system of Schousek including a
`
`microprocessor that (i) determines current weight and weight distribution values
`
`from an array of seat sensors and (ii) determines whether to allow deployment of
`
`the air bag based on the determined weight and weight distribution values discloses
`13
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`“[i]n 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” as recited in the claim.
`
`[1.1]: “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.” Ex. 1004 (emphasis added). A
`
`“microprocessor” monitors “the response of each sensor to occupant pressure,” and
`
`calculates a “total weight” parameter for an occupant of the seat from these sensor
`
`outputs. Id. (emphasis added); Ex. 1003, ¶ 17. This total weight parameter is
`
`calculated by reading a “current voltage” produced by each sensor and
`
`“subtract[ing]” the current voltage “from [a] calibration voltage” for the sensor
`
`representing a “voltage for an empty seat condition.” Ex. 1004, 4:51-56; Ex. 1003,
`
`¶ 17. 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[.]” Ex. 1004, 4:58-60. Therefore, the 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 (e.g., force
`
`applied on the sensor by fabric laid over it, or other forces). Ex. 1003, ¶ 17.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`Accordingly, to the extent that a meaning can be ascribed to the term
`
`“relative weight parameter,”1 calculating a total weight parameter based on the
`
`difference of the current voltage read from each sensors from a calibration voltage
`
`for the sensor, as taught by Schousek, discloses “determining measures represented
`
`by individual sensor outputs and calculating from the sensor outputs a relative
`
`weight parameter,” as recited in the claim.
`
`[1.2]: “establishing a first threshold of the relative weight parameter”
`Schousek describes establishing a “minimum weight threshold” based on
`
`“the minimum weight of an occupied infant seat (about 10 pounds)[.]” Ex. 1004,
`
`5:35-37, 2:31-32 (emphasis added). Schousek states that the minimum weight
`
`threshold is “compared to the measured total weight parameter” (the relative
`
`weight parameter, as discussed at [1.1], supra) “to determine whether the vehicle
`
`seat is holding an occupied infant seat . . . or has no occupant.” Id. at 2:34-38
`
`(emphasis added); Ex. 1003, ¶ 18.
`
`Accordingly, establishing a minimum weight threshold that is compared to
`
`
`
`1 Per the BRI standard, and for the purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioner
`
`proceeds under the assumption that the term “relative weight parameter” is
`
`definite, but reserves the right to argue in other proceedings that this term is
`
`indefinite.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`the measured total weight parameter from the sensors to determine whether the
`
`seat is occupied, as taught by Schousek, discloses “establishing a first threshold of
`
`the relative weight parameter” as recited in the claim.
`
`[1.3]: “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). See Ground 1, [1.1]-[1.2], supra. 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. Ex. 1003, ¶ 19.
`
`First, 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[.]” Ex. 1004, 5:32-35 (emphasis
`
`added). FIG. 5A from Schousek shows this process:
`Determine
`that the
`relative weight
`parameter is
`greater than
`the first
`threshold
`
`Ex. 1004, detail of FIG 5A (annotated)
`
`Allow
`deployment
`
`
`
`The “maximum infant seat weight” represents the “maximum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat (50 pounds),” and is greater than the minimum infant seat
`
`16
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`weight threshold (defined by Schousek as “about 10 pounds”). Id. at 2:31-34; Ex.
`
`1003, ¶ 20. Accordingly, allowing deployment of the air bag when the total weight
`
`parameter is greater than the maximum infant seat weight threshold, and thus
`
`greater than the minimum infant seat weight threshold, as taught by Schousek,
`
`discloses “allowing deployment when the relative weight parameter is above the
`
`first threshold” as recited in the claim.
`
`Second, 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[.]” Ex. 1004, 5:42-44; Ex. 1003, ¶ 21. 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[.]” Ex. 1004, 5:47-50 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003, ¶ 21.
`
`This process is shown in FIG. 5A:
`
`17
`
`
`
`Determine
`that the
`relative weight
`parameter is
`greater than
`the first
`threshold
`
`Selectively allow
`deployment
`based on weight
`distribution
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004, detail of FIG. 5A (annotated)
`
`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. Ex. 1003, ¶ 22. Accordingly, Schousek discloses
`
`“allowing deployment when the relative weight parameter is above the first
`
`threshold” as recited in the claim.
`
`[1.4]: “establishing a lock threshold above the first threshold”
`As described above, Schousek describes a “max infant seat threshold” which
`
`is greater than the “min infant seat threshold.” See Ground 1, [1.3], supra; Ex.
`
`1004, 5:32-39. Schousek states that the “maximum infant seat weight” represents
`
`18
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`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”). Ex. 1004, 2:31-34; Ex. 1003, ¶ 23. This maximum infant seat weight is
`
`a lock threshold because the air bag enablement decision locking procedure
`
`described below at [1.5] is performed when the detected weight exceeds the
`
`maximum infant seat weight. See Ex. 1004, 5:55-58; Ex. 1003, ¶ 23.
`
`Accordingly, by establishing a “max infant seat threshold” greater than the
`
`“min infant seat threshold,” Schousek teaches “establishing a lock threshold above
`
`the first threshold” as recited in the claim.
`
`[1.5]: “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 a process operable to “filter out . . . an occasional
`
`spurious [deployment] decision, which may be due to occupant movement or other
`
`instability[.]” Ex. 1004, 6:2-5 (emphasis added). Schousek describes that the
`
`process includes a loop that stores a current air bag enablement decision “in an
`
`array <90> and if less than five decisions have been stored <92> a decision counter
`
`is incremented <94>” and the process returns to the start of the loop. Ex. 1004,
`
`5:53-55; Ex. 1003, ¶ 24. Schousek continues: “[i]f the counter reaches a count of
`
`five, the counter is cleared <96> and the decisions are compared to determine if
`
`they are all the same <98>.” Ex. 1004, 5:55-58; Ex. 1003, ¶ 24. If all five values
`
`in the decision array “are the same, the current decision is transmitted to” a
`
`19
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No 15625-0020IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`supplemental inflatable restraint (SIR) module controlling airbag deployment, and
`
`“the current decision is labelled as the previous decision[.]” Ex. 1004, 5:58-61;
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 24. If all five decisions in the array “are not the same, the previous
`
`decision is retransmitted to the” SIR module. Ex. 1004, 5:61-63; Ex. 1003, ¶ 24.
`
`Accordingly, Schousek teaches setting the previous decision (a lock flag) if the
`
`same air bag enablement decision has been stored in five consecutive cycles in the
`
`decision array. Ex. 1003, ¶ 24