throbber
IPR2015-01004
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`Paper No. 19
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
`and KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-010041
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`1 Nissan North America, Inc. (“Nissan”) and Kia Motors America, Inc. (“Kia”)
`were joined as parties to this proceeding via Motions for Joinder in IPR2016-
`00113 and IPR2016-00115, respectively. During the conference call with the
`PTAB held on March 29, 2016, the PTAB specifically authorized Kia to file the
`instant Reply on behalf of Kia and Nissan in IPR2015-01004. However, Lead
`Counsel for Kia and Nissan are not authorized to electronically file in IPR2015-
`01004. Counsel for Kia spoke on April 4, 2016 to the Paralegal Operations
`Manager, Maria Vignone, who informed counsel for Kia that she would file the
`instant Reply on behalf of Kia and Nissan in IPR2015-01004.
`
`

`
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................... 1 
`
`Schousek’s Disclosure of a “Minimum Weight Threshold for an
`Occupied Infant Seat” Corresponds to “Establishing a First
`Threshold of the Relative Weight Parameter” as Recited in
`Claims 1 and 17 of the ʼ007 Patent. .............................................................. 3 
`
`III.  Schousek Discloses Establishing a Lock Threshold above the First
`Threshold. ....................................................................................................... 5 
`
`IV.  Schousek Discloses Setting a Lock Flag When the Relative Weight
`Parameter is above the Lock Threshold and Deployment Has Been
`Allowed for a Given Time. ............................................................................ 7 
`
`V. 
`
`Schousek Discloses Clearing the Lock Flag When the Relative
`Weight Parameter is Below the Unlock Threshold for a Time. ................ 8 
`
`VI.  Claims 18 and 19 of the ʼ007 Patent are Obvious in View of
`Schousek and Blackburn ............................................................................... 9 
`
`VII.  Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 9 
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Boesen v. Garmin Int’l., Inc.,
`455 F. App’x 974 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ....................................................................... 4
`
`Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co.,
`868 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ........................................................................ 4, 5
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In its Patent Owner’s Response (“POR”; Paper No. 14), Patent Owner
`
`(“PO”) fails to present any new substantive arguments that would require the
`
`Board to reconsider its Institution Decision. (Paper No. 11). Instead, without
`
`presenting any new facts in its POR, PO relies on recycled criticisms and
`
`arguments that it had presented to the Board in its Preliminary Patent Owner’s
`
`Response submitted in IPR2016-00113 and IPR2016-00115. (IPR 2016-00113,
`
`Paper No. 9; IPR2016-00115, Paper No. 14). The Board had already considered
`
`and correctly rejected those arguments. (Paper Nos. 15 and 16, at 3-4). Having no
`
`new substantive arguments in its arsenal, PO raises no new facts in its POR that
`
`would compel a different result here.
`
`
`
`For example, PO argues that Schousek cannot anticipate claims 1 or 17
`
`because in Schousek, air bag deployment is not allowed when the seat sensors
`
`detect a weight above the minimum weight of an occupied infant seat because the
`
`seat sensors in Schousek must also detect a forward-facing infant seat. The Board
`
`considered this and found that PO acknowledged that “in Schousek ‘if the seat
`
`sensors determine that the total weight of the seat occupant is greater than the
`
`minimum weight of an occupied infant seat’ and ‘the center of weight distribution
`
`is determined to be not forward of a reference line – a condition indicative of a
`
`forward-facing infant seat – [] airbag deployment [is] permitted.’” (Paper Nos. 15
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`and 16, at 3). Thus, Schousek allows deployment when the relative weight
`
`parameter is above the first threshold.
`
`
`
`Moreover, PO’s argument that the maximum weight value of an occupied
`
`infant seat in Schousek is not equivalent to the ʼ007 Patent’s “first threshold”
`
`ignores Petitioners’ contentions, which rely on Schousek’s minimum weight value
`
`to meet the claimed “first threshold.” (See Pet. 17-18.)
`
`
`
`Lastly, as the Board noted in Paper No. 16, PO’s argument concerning the
`
`setting and clearing of the lock flag were addressed in detail in the ʼ1004
`
`Institution Decision. Schousek teaches “setting a lock flag” by setting the previous
`
`decision to allow deployment if all five enablement decisions in the decision array
`
`are to allow deployment when the total weight parameter is above the maximum
`
`infant seat weight threshold. Schousek discloses “clearing the flag” when the
`
`previous decision is to allow airbag deployment and five consecutive subsequent
`
`decisions to inhibit deployment occur due to the total weight parameter being
`
`below the minimum infant weight threshold, thus setting the previous decision to
`
`now inhibit airbag deployment.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Petitioners respectfully request the Board deny POR and adopt
`
`the facts and reasoning in Petitioners’ Petition and Reply and make final the
`
`Institution Decision, finding claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 17-21 of the ʼ007 Patent
`
`unpatentable.
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`II. SCHOUSEK’S DISCLOSURE OF A “MINIMUM WEIGHT
`THRESHOLD
`FOR
`AN OCCUPIED
`INFANT
`SEAT”
`CORRESPONDS TO “ESTABLISHING A FIRST THRESHOLD OF
`THE RELATIVE WEIGHT PARAMETER” AS RECITED IN
`CLAIMS 1 AND 17 OF THE ʼ007 PATENT.
`
`The Board correctly observed in its Institution Decision that PO had yet to
`
`
`
`dispute in its Preliminary Response Petitioners’ contentions regarding this
`
`limitation and found PO’s lack of dispute in its Preliminary Response as persuasive
`
`for purposes of the Board’s Institution Decision. (Paper No. 11, at 8). PO’s
`
`argument in its POR regarding this limitation fares no better to persuade the Board
`
`that the challenged claims are valid, as the argument is substantially the same as
`
`was rejected by the Board in its Decisions granting Institution of the Nissan and
`
`Kia IPRs. (Paper Nos. 15 and 16, at 3). Essentially, PO argues that Schousek does
`
`not allow airbag deployment when the relative weight parameter is above the first
`
`threshold, yet it admits that Schousek permits deployment “if the seat sensors
`
`determine that the total weight of the seat occupant is greater than the minimum
`
`weight of an occupied infant seat” and “the center of weight distribution is
`
`determined to be not forward of a reference line – a condition indicative of a
`
`forward facing seat.” (IPR2016-00115, Paper No. 14, at 12.)
`
`
`
`Indeed, the ʼ007 Patent describes a system for detecting dynamic road
`
`conditions and “off center weight distributions caused by sitting on a seat edge or
`
`leaning in one direction…” HN-1001, 5:38-39. This is similar to Schousek’s
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`determining step of whether or not the center of weight distribution is forward of
`
`the reference line. Schousek discloses 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[.]” HN-1004, 5:47-50. Thus,
`
`Schousek discloses 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 allowed according to the weight distribution detected by the sensors.
`
`
`
`The Federal Circuit has found that as long as the accused product or system
`
`can—and does—perform the claimed method, “it is of no consequence that it can
`
`also perform other” method steps. See Boesen v. Garmin Int’l., Inc., 455 F. App’x
`
`974, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("The district court correctly explained that as long as the
`
`Acura navigation system can—and does—perform the claimed input method, it is
`
`of no consequence that it can also perform other input methods.”). Here, it is of no
`
`consequence that Schousek determines whether or not the center of weight
`
`distribution is not forward of the reference line because Schousek can—and does—
`
`allow deployment when the relative weight parameter is above the first threshold.
`
`
`
`Moreover, PO’s reliance on Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1989) is misplaced. In Richardson, the Federal Circuit affirmed the
`
`district court’s finding that the prior art did not anticipate the asserted claims not
`
`because the prior art disclosed an additional step or requirement, but rather the
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`prior art did not disclose certain claim limitations of the asserted patent. 868 F.2d
`
`at 1236. This is not the case here. As explained, Schousek discloses “allowing
`
`deployment when the relative weight parameter is above the first threshold” as
`
`required in claims 1 and 17.
`
`
`
`
`
`Additionally, because claims 2, 3, 5, and 9 depend from claim 1, and claims
`
`20 and 21 depend from claim 17, these dependent claims include the limitations of
`
`claims 1 and 17 and are thus anticipated by Schousek.
`
`III. SCHOUSEK DISCLOSES ESTABLISHING A LOCK THRESHOLD
`ABOVE THE FIRST THRESHOLD.
`
`The Board has already correctly rejected PO’s erroneous statement that
`
`
`
`Petitioners equate the recited “first threshold” with Schousek’s maximum infant
`
`seat weight threshold. (Paper Nos. 15 and 16, at 3-4; Paper No. 11, at 10, n.4). The
`
`“first threshold” of claims 1 and 17 is Schousek’s minimum infant seat weight
`
`threshold and the “lock threshold” in claims 1 and 17 is Schousek’s maximum
`
`infant seat weight threshold. In other words, Petitioners do not contend that the
`
`maximum weight of an occupied infant seat in Schousek is the first threshold of
`
`the relative weight parameter recited in claims 1 and 17 of the ʼ007 Patent, as PO
`
`states. Rather, Petitioners contend that the maximum weight of an occupied infant
`
`seat in Schousek is the “lock threshold” as recited in claims 1 and 17 of the ʼ007
`
`Patent.
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`As explained in the Petition, the maximum infant seat weight is a lock
`
`threshold because the air bag enablement decision locking procedure described in
`
`Schousek is performed when the detected weight exceeds the maximum infant seat
`
`weight. (Pet. at 18-21). Thus, because the maximum infant seat threshold (50
`
`pounds) is greater than the minimum infant seat threshold (about 10 pounds),
`
`Schousek discloses “establishing a lock threshold above the first threshold” as
`
`recited in claims 1 and 17.
`
`
`
`PO’s argument solely relies on the incorrect assumption that Petitioner
`
`equates the maximum weight of an occupied infant seat to the “first threshold of
`
`the relative weight parameter” as recited in claims 1 and 17. (POR, at 14-17.)
`
`Based on this faulty assumption, PO argues that “[i]n Schousek, there is no
`
`threshold that is greater than the maximum weight of an occupied infant seat.”
`
`(POR, at 15). Because PO’s argument is entirely based on an incorrect assumption,
`
`PO’s argument that claims 1 and 17 are not anticipated by Schousek necessarily
`
`fails. Additionally, because claims 2, 3, 5, and 9 depend from claim 1, and claims
`
`20 and 21 depend from claim 17, these dependent claims include the limitations of
`
`claims 1 and 17 and are thus anticipated by Schousek.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`IV. SCHOUSEK DISCLOSES SETTING A LOCK FLAG WHEN THE
`RELATIVE WEIGHT PARAMETER IS ABOVE THE LOCK
`THRESHOLD AND DEPLOYMENT HAS BEEN ALLOWED FOR A
`GIVEN TIME.
`
`The Board correctly understood Schousek’s disclosure of “setting the
`
`
`
`previous decision to allow deployment if all five enablement decisions in the
`
`decision array are to allow deployment when the total weight parameter is above
`
`the maximum infant seat weight threshold” as disclosing “setting a lock flag when
`
`the relative weight parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been
`
`allowed for a given time.” (Paper Nos. 15 and 16, at 4; Paper No. 11, at 9; Pet. at
`
`22). As explained in the Petition, Schousek discloses that “[t]he decision made in
`
`each loop execution is stored in an array…” HN-1004, 5:53-54. Specifically,
`
`Schousek discloses setting the previous decision (i.e., a lock flag) if the same air
`
`bag enablement decision has been stored in five consecutive cycles in the decision
`
`array. One of the enablement decisions stored in the array is the decision to deploy
`
`if the total weight parameter (i.e., the relative weight parameter) is above the
`
`maximum infant weight threshold (i.e., the lock threshold). Thus, Schousek
`
`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 required in claims
`
`1 and 17.
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
` Additionally, because claims 2, 3, 5, and 9 depend from claim 1, and claims
`
`20 and 21 depend from claim 17, these dependent claims include the limitations of
`
`claims 1 and 17 and are thus anticipated by Schousek.
`
`V. SCHOUSEK DISCLOSES CLEARING THE LOCK FLAG WHEN
`THE RELATIVE WEIGHT PARAMETER IS BELOW THE
`UNLOCK THRESHOLD FOR A TIME.
`
`The Board is correct to note that Petitioners’ contentions regarding Schousek
`
`
`
`relative to “clearing the lock flag” do not appear to “assume[] a previous
`
`determination to inhibit, rather than deploy, an air bag” as PO suggests. (Paper No.
`
`11, at 10). Petitioners confirm and agree with the Board’s understanding of
`
`Schousek that when the previous decision is to allow airbag deployment, and five
`
`consecutive decisions to inhibit deployment occur subsequently, the “previous
`
`decision” is updated to inhibit deployment and the “lock flag” is cleared. (Id. at 10-
`
`11; Paper Nos. 15 and 16, at 4).
`
`
`
`In its POR, PO appears to recycle the same argument that it had presented in
`
`its Preliminary Response and makes the same incorrect assumption. PO argues that
`
`Schousek sets the “previous decision” to inhibit deployment when the decision to
`
`inhibit deployment of the airbag remains unchanged over five consecutive fault
`
`monitoring loops. PO appears to argue that in this particular scenario there is no
`
`lock flag to clear. As explained above, this is not the case.
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Additionally, because claims 2, 3, 5, and 9 depend from claim 1, and claims
`
`20 and 21 depend from claim 17, these dependent claims include the limitations of
`
`claims 1 and 17 and are thus anticipated by Schousek.
`
`VI. CLAIMS 18 AND 19 OF THE ʼ007 PATENT ARE OBVIOUS IN
`VIEW OF SCHOUSEK AND BLACKBURN
`
`
`
`PO did not rebut Blackburn in its Preliminary Response and again failed to
`
`rebut Blackburn in its POR. In its POR, PO does not argue Blackburn on the
`
`merits, but makes the conclusory assumption that any combination of Schousek
`
`and Blackburn would not render obvious claims 18 and 19 because Schousek
`
`allegedly fails to anticipate claims 1 and 17. (POR, at 21-22.)
`
`
`
`For the reasons stated in the Petition and this Reply, Schousek anticipates
`
`claims 1 and 17 of the ʼ007 Patent. And because PO fails to provide any argument
`
`as to the merits of the combination of Schousek and Blackburn, let alone as to the
`
`merits of Blackburn, claims 18 and 19 of the ʼ007 Patent are obvious in view of
`
`Schousek and Blackburn.
`
`VII. CONCLUSION
`
` For the forgoing reasons, as well as those stated in Petitioners’ prior case
`
`submissions, Petitioners respectfully request that the Board make its Institution
`
`Decision final, finding claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 17-21of the ʼ007 Patent unpatentable.
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`
`/s/ Heath J. Briggs
`Heath J. Briggs
`Registration No. 54,919
`1200 17th Street, Suite 2400
`Denver, CO 80202
`KiaGTIPR@gtlaw.com
`Phone: (303) 572-6500
`Fax: (303) 572-6540
`
`Patrick J. McCarthy
`Reg. No. 62,762
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`2101 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20037
`KiaGTIPR@gtlaw.com
`Phone: (202) 331-3100
`Fax: (202) 331-3101
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
`
`/s/ Patrick A. Lujin
`Patrick A. Lujin
`Registration No. 35,260
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
`2555 Grand Blvd.
`Kansas City, MO 64108
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 4, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 4, 2016
`
`
`

`
`plujin@shb.com
`Phone: (816) 474-6550
`Fax: (816) 421-5547
`
`Tawni L. Wilhelm
`Reg. No. 47,456
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
`2555 Grand Blvd.
`Kansas City, MO 64108
`twilhelm@shb.com
`Phone: (816) 474-6550
`Fax: (816) 421-5547
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 4th day of April, 2016, a copy of this
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response has been served in its entirety by
`
`Federal Express Mail on the following Patent Owner of record:
`
`Ascenda Law Group, PC
`333 W San Carlos St.
`Suite 200
`San Jose CA 95110
`Email: tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
` holy.atkison@ascendalaw.com
`
` GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`
`/s/ Heath J. Briggs
`Heath J. Briggs
`Registration No. 54,919
`1200 17th Street, Suite 2400
`Denver, CO 80202
`KiaGTIPR@gtlaw.com
`Phone: (303) 572-6500
`Fax: (303) 572-6540
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Date: April 4, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket