Paper 11
`Entered: October 1, 2015
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01004
`Patent 6,012,007
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
`JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01004
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a corrected
`
`Petition to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5, 9, and 17–21
`
`(“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 (Ex. 1001, “the
`
`’007 patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Signal IP, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may
`
`not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`
`the petition.” For the reasons given below, we institute an inter partes
`
`review in this proceeding with respect to claims 1–3, 5, 9, and 17–21.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’007 patent is the subject
`
`of a number of co-pending federal district court cases, including: Signal IP,
`
`Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-02454 (C.D.
`
`Cal.) (“the related litigation”). Pet. 1–4; Paper 5, 2–3.
`
`C. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability and Evidence of Record
`
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based on the following grounds (Pet. 4–6, 8–59).
`
`References
`
`Schousek1
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`§ 102
`
`1–3, 5, 9, 17, 20, and 21
`
`Schousek and Blackburn2
`
`§ 103
`
`18 and 19
`
`
`1 U.S. Pat. No. 5,474,327, iss. Dec. 12, 1995 (Ex. 1004, “Schousek”).
`2 U.S. Pat. No. 5,232,243, iss. Aug. 3, 1993 (Ex. 1005, “Blackburn”).
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01004
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`References
`
`Blackburn
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`§ 103
`
`1–3, 5, 17–21
`
`Blackburn and Schousek
`
`§ 103
`
`1–3, 5, 17–21
`
`Petitioner also provides testimony from Kirsten Carr, Ph.D. Ex. 1003
`
`(“the Carr Declaration”).
`
`D. The ’007 Patent
`
`
`
`The ’007 patent is directed to “an airbag system having seat pressure
`
`detectors [mounted] in the seat” and its method of operation. Ex. 1001,
`
`1:10–12. The ’007 patent explains that one “object of the invention [is] to
`
`discriminate in a [supplemental inflatable restraint] system between large
`
`and small seat occupants for a determination of whether an airbag
`
`deployment should be permitted” and “[a]nother object in such a system is
`
`to maintain reliable operation in spite of dynamic variations in sensed
`
`pressures.” Id. at 1:52–57.
`
`
`
`The ’007 patent describes “seat sensing system 14 to inhibit air bag
`
`deployment when a seat is empty or occupied by a small child, while
`
`allowing deployment when the occupant is large.” Id. at 2:55–58. An
`
`example is provided where the system is tuned to always inhibit airbag
`
`deployment for occupants weighing less than 66 pounds, and always allow
`
`deployment for occupants exceeding 105 pounds. Id. at 2:58–61. The seat
`
`occupant sensing system includes a microprocessor and sensors mounted in
`
`a seat monitored by the microprocessor to determine whether to inhibit
`
`airbag deployment. Id. at 2:61–3:7.
`
`
`
`The sensors are periodically sampled and decision measures are
`
`computed. Id. at 3:39–43. Decision measure computations include, for
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01004
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`example, “calculating total force and its threshold, sensor load ratings and
`
`measure, long term average of sensor readings and its threshold.” Id. at
`
`3:49–52. An “Adult Lock Flag” can be set to always allow airbag
`
`deployment. Id. at 4:40–41. When determining whether to set the “Adult
`
`Lock Flag,” the total force is compared to “a lock threshold[,] which is
`
`above the total force threshold” (i.e., the threshold used as the minimum
`
`allowable value for airbag deployment), and “an unlock threshold[,] which
`
`represents an empty seat.” Id. at 4:41–44. A lock timer is compared to a
`
`lock delay to determine when to set the “Adult Lock Flag.” Id. at 4:44–46,
`
`Fig. 8. “If . . . the total force is greater than the lock threshold, and the lock
`
`timer is larger than the lock delay . . . the Adult Lock Flag is set.” Id. at
`
`4:46–50.
`
`E. Illustrative Claim
`
`As noted above, Petitioner challenges claims 1–3, 5, 9, and 17–21.
`
`Claims 1 and 17 are independent claims, with claims 2, 3, 5, and 9
`
`depending from claim 1, and claims 18–21 depending from claim 17. Claim
`
`1 is 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
`parameter;
`
`threshold of
`
`the relative weight
`
`allowing deployment when the relative weight parameter is
`above the first threshold;
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01004
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`establishing a lock threshold above the first threshold;
`
`setting a lock flag when the relative weight parameter 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.
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:42–64.
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification in which
`
`they appear and the understanding of others skilled in the relevant art.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Although not yet expired, it appears that the ’007
`
`patent will expire on December 1, 2015. See 35 U.S.C. § 154. “[T]he
`
`Board’s review of the claims of an expired patent is similar to that of a
`
`district court’s review.” In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012). Based on the information before us, we are not apprised of any
`
`particular claim term that would have different construction under either
`
`standard of claim construction.
`
`Petitioner contends that “[n]o relevant issues of claim construction are
`
`presented 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.”
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01004
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`Pet. 7–8. Patent Owner does not offer an explicit construction for any
`
`specific claim term.
`
`On April 17, 2015, a claim construction order was issued by the
`
`district court in the related litigation, determining the “relative weight
`
`parameter” recited in claims 1, 17, and 20 to be indefinite. Ex. 2001, 60–63.
`
`On May 22, 2015, the district court in the related litigation entered a Partial
`
`Judgement of Invalidity stating that Signal IP, Inc. and American Honda
`
`Motor Co., Inc. filed a Joint Stipulation for Entry of Partial Final Judgement
`
`of Invalidity.3 Ex. 3001, 1. Pursuant to authorization from the panel (Paper
`
`7), Petitioner and Patent Owner each filed briefing related to the impact of
`
`the Partial Judgement of Invalidity on this proceeding (Paper 9 (“Pet. Br.”);
`
`Paper 10 (“PO Br.”)).
`
`Patent Owner argues claims 1, 17, and 20 of the ’007 patent are not
`
`indefinite. PO Br. 2–7. Petitioner contends that those claims are indefinite.
`
`Pet. Br. 2–5. Petitioner notes, however, that claim 21, which depends from
`
`claim 17 and defines the “relative weight parameter” as “a total force
`
`detected by all the sensors,” was determined to be definite by the district
`
`court. Id. at 4 (citing Ex. 2001, 63 n. 15). Petitioner additionally notes that
`
`claims 3 and 5, which depend from claim 1, similarly define the “relative
`
`weight parameter” as a “total force” and “total load rating,” respectively. Id.
`
`at 4–5. Accordingly, Petitioner contends that the “relative weight
`
`
`3 The Joint Stipulation is based on the district court’s claim construction
`order (Ex. 2001), which determined claims 1, 8, 9, and 17–20 of the ’007
`patent indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 2. Ex. 2002, 1. The indefiniteness
`of the claims identified above was based on the inability to construe the term
`“relative weight parameter.” Ex. 2001, 63.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01004
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`parameter” at least includes a “total force,” as recited in claims 3 and 21, or
`
`“total load rating,” as recited in claim 5. See, e.g., Pet. 25–26, 28.
`
`Based on the particular circumstances of this case, we are able to
`
`apply the grounds of unpatentability asserted by Petitioner to the challenged
`
`claims in view of the further definition of the “relative weight parameter”
`
`provided in the dependent claims (i.e., “total force” or “total load rating”).
`
`In the challenges based on Schousek, for example, Petitioner’s contentions
`
`regarding the recited “relative weight parameter” are based on Schousek’s
`
`total weight parameter. Pet. 10, 16, 28. As Petitioner notes, “Schousek
`
`describes ‘summ[ing]’ the forces from each of an array of sensors ‘to obtain
`
`a total force or weight parameter.’” Pet. Br. 5 (quoting Ex. 1004, 5:30–31).
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we determine that the “relative weight
`
`parameter,” recited in claims 1 and 17, includes a parameter representing a
`
`total weight of an occupant. At this stage of the proceeding, we determine
`
`that no other particular term requires an express construction in order to
`
`conduct properly our analysis of the prior art.
`
`B. Anticipation by Schousek
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–3, 5, 9, 17, 20, and 21 are
`
`anticipated by Schousek. Pet. 5, 8–28. For the reasons discussed below, we
`
`are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing at trial on this challenge to claims 1–3, 5, 9, 17, 20, and 21.
`
`As Petitioner notes (Pet. 11–12), Schousek is directed to an airbag
`
`restraint system (Ex. 1004, Abstract). Schousek describes sensors located
`
`beneath a seat cover used to determine a total weight parameter in its airbag
`
`restraint system (Ex. 1004, 4:51–60), which Petitioner contends corresponds
`
`to the “determining measures” and “calculating . . . a relative weight
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01004
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`parameter” recited in claim 1 (Pet. 14–15). Schousek describes a “minimum
`
`threshold” corresponding to a minimum weight of an occupied infant seat
`
`and a “maximum threshold” corresponding to a maximum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat. Ex. 1004, 2:31–34. Schousek explains that “[i]f the
`
`total weight parameter is greater than the maximum infant seat weight . . . a
`
`decision is made to allow deployment,” and “if the total weight parameter is
`
`less than the minimum weight threshold for an occupied infant seat . . . a
`
`decision is made to inhibit deployment.” Id. at 5:32–39.
`
`Petitioner cites Shousek’s discussion of the “minimum threshold” as
`
`corresponding to “establishing a first threshold” in claim 1 and Schousek’s
`
`discussion of the “maximum threshold” as corresponding to “establishing a
`
`lock threshold” in claim 1. Pet. 10, 15–19. Petitioner contends that
`
`Schousek’s disclosure of allowing airbag deployment “[i]f the total weight
`
`parameter is greater than the maximum infant seat weight,” corresponds to
`
`“allowing deployment when the relative weight parameter is above the first
`
`threshold” in claim 1 because the “maximum infant seat weight” is greater
`
`than the “minimum infant seat weight” in Schousek. Pet. 10, 16–18 (citing
`
`(Ex. 1004, 5:32–34). Patent Owner does not yet dispute Petitioner’s
`
`contentions regarding these limitations (see Prelim. Resp. 9–16), which we
`
`find persuasive for purposes of this Decision.
`
`With respect to “setting a lock flag” and “allowing deployment while
`
`the lock flag is set” in claim 1, Petitioner cites Schousek’s discussion of fault
`
`detection. Pet. 10, 19–20 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:53–63, 6:2–5). The cited
`
`portions of Schousek describe monitoring the consistency of decisions
`
`regarding airbag deployment, and provides an example where the decision to
`
`allow deployment is updated every five seconds. Ex. 1004, 5:51–6:5. In
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01004
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`this example, a loop occurs where the decision on whether to deploy an
`
`airbag is monitored repeatedly. Id. at 5:53–55, Fig. 5b. If the decision
`
`(deploy or no deployment) is the same for five consecutive iterations, that
`
`decision is used to determine airbag deployment status and is labelled the
`
`“previous decision.” Id. at 5:58–61, Fig. 5b. If five consecutive decisions
`
`are not the same, airbag deployment status is not changed, and the previous
`
`decision is used again for airbag deployment status. Id. at 5:61–63.
`
`Petitioner contends that “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 taught by Schousek, teaches ‘setting a lock flag.’” Pet. 20.
`
`As for “establishing an unlock threshold” in claim 1, Petitioner cites
`
`Shousek’s discussion regarding determining a seat is empty when the total
`
`weight parameter is less than the minimum weight threshold for an occupied
`
`infant seat. Id. at 20–21 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:36–39). Petitioner contends that
`
`when the “previous decision” in Schousek is a decision 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, the “previous decision” is set to inhibit
`
`airbag deployment, which corresponds to “clearing the flag” recited in claim
`
`1. Id. at 21–23 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:53–61).
`
`Patent Owner responds that “Schousek fails to teach or suggest setting
`
`a lock flag” and that even if Schousek disclosed setting a lock flag,
`
`“Schousek does not teach clearing the lock flag.” Prelim. Resp. 9, 13–16.
`
`With respect to “setting a lock flag,” Patent Owner summarizes Petitioner’s
`
`contentions, but does not articulate any particular error in those contentions.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01004
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`See id. at 13.4 As for “clearing the lock flag,” Patent Owner contends that
`
`“Schousek clearly states that the fault condition counter is cleared, not when
`
`a relative weight parameter falls below an unlock threshold for a period of
`
`time, but rather when the decision to permit deployment of the airbag
`
`remains unchanged over five consecutive fault monitoring loops.” Id. at 14.
`
`Patent Owner contends that “Schousek is describing a situation that occurs
`
`when the system determines that the relative weight parameter is above, not
`
`below, a threshold indicative of an empty seat,” which “is precisely contrary
`
`to the condition required by claim 1.” Id. at 14–15. Patent Owner contends
`
`that “Petitioner’s analysis of this element of claim 1 assumes a previous
`
`determination to inhibit, rather than deploy, an airbag.” Id. at 15 (citing Pet.
`
`22).
`
`Patent Owner’s contentions are not persuasive. Initially, we note that
`
`Petitioner’s contentions regarding Schousek relative to “clearing the lock
`
`flag” (Pet. 22) do not appear to “assume[] a previous determination to
`
`inhibit, rather than deploy, an airbag” as Patent Owner suggests (Prelim.
`
`Resp. 15). Rather, Petitioner contends that Schousek discloses “updating the
`
`previous decision to ‘inhibit deployment’ if a decision to inhibit deployment
`
`because the total weight parameter is less than the minimum infant seat
`
`weight threshold has been stored in five consecutive cycles in the decision
`
`array.” Pet. 22–23. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions that when
`
`
`4 Patent Owner states that “Petitioner equates the recited ‘first threshold’
`with Schousek’s maximum infant seat weight threshold” Prelim. Resp. 13
`(citing Pet. 16), which appears to be incorrect. Rather, Petitioner appears to
`equate the “first threshold” in claim 1 to Schousek’s minimum infant seat
`weight threshold, and the “lock threshold” in claim 1 to Schousek’s
`“maximum infant seat weight threshold.” Pet. 15, 18.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01004
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`the “previous decision” in Schousek is set to allow deployment, a “lock flag”
`
`is set, and when five consecutive decisions to inhibit deployment occur
`
`subsequently, the “previous decision” is set to inhibit deployment and the
`
`“lock flag” is cleared. See id.
`
`Claim 17 is similar to claim 1, but recites “a microprocessor . . .
`
`particularly programmed to” perform the steps of the method of claim 1.
`
`Petitioner’s contentions regarding claim 17 (Pet. 27–28), and Patent Owner’s
`
`response to those contentions (Prelim. Resp. 16–17), are the same as set
`
`forth regarding claim 1. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions
`
`regarding claim 17 for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 1. We
`
`have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions regard claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 20, and 21
`
`(see Pet. 23–28), which depend from claim 1 or 17, and are persuaded by
`
`those contentions as well.5
`
`Accordingly, based on the record before us, we are persuaded that
`
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of succeeding on its
`
`challenge to claims 1–3, 5, 9, 17, 20, and 21 based on anticipation by
`
`Schousek.
`
`C. Obviousness over Schousek and Blackburn
`
`Claims 18 and 19 depend from claim 17. Petitioner contends that
`
`these claims would have been obvious over the combination of Schousek
`
`and Blackburn. Pet. 28–37. We have reviewed, and are persuaded by
`
`
`5 Patent Owner does not yet dispute Petitioner’s contentions regarding these
`dependent claims. Prelim. Resp. 16–17.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01004
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`Petitioner’s contentions, which are unrebutted by Patent Owner at this time.
`
`See Prelim. Resp. 17–18.6
`
`Accordingly, based on the record before us, we are persuaded that
`
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of succeeding on its
`
`challenge to claims 18 and 19 based on obviousness over Schousek and
`
`Blackburn.
`
`D. Obviousness over Blackburn
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–3, 5, and 17–21 would have been
`
`obvious over Blackburn. Pet. 5, 37–53. For the reasons discussed below,
`
`we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing at trial on this challenge to claims 1–3, 5, and 17–
`
`21.
`
`Blackburn describes an occupant restraint system in a vehicle
`
`including an airbag. Ex. 1005, 3:30–32. More specifically, Blackburn
`
`describes operation of its occupant restraint system where an airbag is
`
`initially in a condition where deployment is permitted and seat sensors are
`
`repeatedly monitored to determine whether an occupant is present in the
`
`seat. Id. at 13:26–34. If it is determined that an occupant is not present in
`
`the seat, the airbag is disabled. Id. at 13:40–57. If it is determined that an
`
`occupant is present in the seat, the airbag remains in the enabled condition.
`
`Id. at 13:58–60. After the airbag is initially maintained in the enabled
`
`condition based on occupant detection, the system further evaluates the
`
`position of the occupant in the seat to determine whether to maintain the
`
`
`6 Patent Owner’s arguments are directed to Blackburn’s failure to correct the
`alleged deficiencies in Petitioner’s challenge to claim 17.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01004
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`airbag in the enabled condition and, if so, whether the airbag orientation
`
`should be adjusted. Id. at 13:67–14:14.
`
`Petitioner contends that Blackburn teaches “establishing a weight
`
`threshold above which a weight value produced by the sensor array indicates
`
`a vehicle seat is occupied,” which it contends corresponds to “establishing a
`
`first threshold” in claim 1. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005, 13:31–36). Petitioner
`
`also contends that Blackburn’s “weight threshold that is used to determine
`
`whether the seat is occupied is [] a lock threshold,” as required by claim 1,
`
`“because air bag deployment is enabled (allowed) for a period of time (e.g.,
`
`10 cycles) once the weight threshold is exceeded.” Id. at 43–44 (citing Ex.
`
`1005, 13:40–48). Petitioner reasons that “[e]stablishing the lock threshold
`
`as a value above the first threshold would have been obvious because
`
`controlling deployment of air bag systems according to different weight
`
`thresholds was well-known in the art at the time of the ’007 Patent” and “the
`
`desirability of implementing a locking behavior of air bag deployment, such
`
`as that taught by Blackburn, at a weight level above that indicative of an
`
`occup[ant] was known in the art.” Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 47; Ex. 1004,
`
`2:31–34, 5:42–50; Ex. 1005, 14:55–15:48).
`
`Petitioner’s contention that “controlling deployment of air bag
`
`systems according to different weight thresholds was well-known in the art
`
`at the time of the ’007 Patent” does not provide any explanation as to why
`
`one skilled in the art would have implemented the higher lock threshold in
`
`Blackburn proposed by Petitioner. Petitioner’s argument that “the
`
`desirability of implementing a locking behavior of air bag deployment, such
`
`as that taught by Blackburn, at a weight level above that indicative of an
`
`occup[ant] was known in the art” is also unpersuasive because it too fails to
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01004
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`offer any explanation of why it would have been desirable to modify
`
`Blackburn as proposed. Petitioner fails to identify any particular alleged
`
`“desirability” in its Petition. Petitioner’s challenge fails for at least these
`
`reasons.
`
`Moreover, based on our review of Blackburn and Petitioner’s
`
`proposed modification, it is unclear why one skilled in the art would want to
`
`modify Blackburn as proposed by Petitioner. As Patent Owner notes, “the
`
`cited portions of Blackburn concern disabling an airbag when a seat is
`
`determined to be unoccupied” because “the proposed lock threshold of
`
`Blackburn is one intended for use in preventing airbag deployment (by
`
`disabling the system).” Prelim. Resp. 20. Blackburn includes a detailed
`
`algorithm accounting for various conditions (occupant weight, position, etc.)
`
`when an occupant is present in the seat. See Ex. 1005, 13:67–15:48.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed modification includes modifying the threshold
`
`used at step 404 of the process illustrated in Blackburn’s Figure 20 to be
`
`greater than the threshold indicating a seat is occupied.7 Pet. 44.
`
`Petitioner’s annotated version of a portion of Figure 20 from Blackburn is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`7 The claim requires that the “lock threshold” is greater than the “first
`threshold” and Petitioner contends that “establishing a weight threshold
`above which a weight value produced by the sensor array indicates a vehicle
`seat is occupied, as taught by Blackburn, discloses ‘establishing a first
`threshold of the relative weight parameter’ as recited in the claim.” Pet. 41.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01004
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s annotated portion of Figure 20 from Blackburn illustrates
`
`Blackburn’s process for disabling airbag deployment and includes
`
`Petitioner’s characterization of the process steps corresponding to the steps
`
`in claim 1 related to the “lock threshold.”
`
`With Petitioner’s proposed modification (i.e., using the “lock
`
`threshold” to determine whether an object is present at step 404), the airbag
`
`would be disabled when the weight in the seat is below the “lock threshold”
`
`for ten iterations (steps 406, 408, 410), even though the weight in the seat
`
`may be above the “first threshold” (the value corresponding to an adult-
`
`occupied seat in Blackburn). Thus, in Petitioner’s modified version of
`
`Blackburn, in some instances where an occupant is in the seat (i.e., first
`
`threshold is met, but weight is lower than lock threshold), the airbag would
`
`be disabled. Petitioner offers no explanation as to why one skilled in the art
`
`would have wanted to modify Blackburn in this manner.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01004
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`Petitioner’s contentions with respect to claim 17 are the same as those
`
`set forth regarding claim 1 and suffer from the same deficiencies discussed
`
`above. Pet. 51–52. Claims 2, 3, 5, and 18–21 depend from claim 1 or 17,
`
`and Petitioner’s contentions regarding those claims do not cure the
`
`deficiencies discussed above regarding claims 1 and 17.
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has not established a
`
`reasonable likelihood of success on its challenge to claims 1–3, 5, and 17–21
`
`based on obviousness over Blackburn.
`
`E. Obviousness over Blackburn and Schousek
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–3, 5, and 17–21 would have been
`
`obvious over Blackburn and Schousek. Pet. 5, 53–59. For the reasons
`
`discussed below, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing at trial on this challenge to claims 1–3, 5,
`
`and 17–21.
`
`Petitioner addresses only claim 1 in detail in this challenge, asserting
`
`the same arguments for claim 17.8 Petitioner’s arguments are generally the
`
`same as those presented in its challenge to claim 1 based on obviousness
`
`over Blackburn, discussed above, except in this challenge Petitioner
`
`additionally cites Schousek for the “establishing a lock threshold above the
`
`first threshold” limitation. Pet. 54–58.
`
`In its challenge based on obviousness over Blackburn, Petitioner
`
`alleged that “[e]stablishing the lock threshold as a value above the first
`
`threshold would have been obvious because controlling deployment of air
`
`bag systems according to different weight thresholds was well-known in the
`
`8 Petitioner includes a table noting arguments from other challenges that
`should be applied to dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 18–21 in this challenge.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01004
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`art at the time of the ’007 Patent,” and cited Schousek in support of that
`
`allegation. Pet. 44. In this challenge, Petitioner notes that “Schousek
`
`teaches setting the lock threshold to a value above the first threshold.” Pet.
`
`56. Petitioner then concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of
`
`skill in the art to modify the value of the lock threshold taught by Blackburn
`
`to be different than the first threshold in view of these teachings of
`
`Schousek.” Id. Petitioner proceeds to allege that
`
`[o]ne of skill in the art would have been motivated to use the
`techniques described in Schousek to allow Blackburn to use
`different weight threshold values for the first and lock
`thresholds because controlling deployment of air bag systems
`according to different weight thresholds was well-known in the
`art at the time of the ’007 Patent
`
`and “the desirability of implementing a locking behavior of air bag
`
`deployment, such as that taught by Blackburn, at a weight level above that
`
`indicative of an occup[ant] was known in the art.” Id. at 57.
`
`Again, however, Petitioner fails to offer any persuasive explanation as
`
`to why one skilled in the art would have modified Blackburn in the manner
`
`proposed. This challenge suffers from the same deficiencies discussed
`
`above regarding the challenge based on obviousness over Blackburn.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood
`
`of success on its challenge to claims 1–3, 5, and 17–21 based on obviousness
`
`over Blackburn and Schousek.
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`
`presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01004
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1–3, 5, 9, and 17–
`
`21 of the ’007 patent.
`
`The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of
`
`any challenged claims.
`
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`For the reasons given, it is
`
`ORDERED that an inter partes review is instituted as to:
`
`A.
`
`Claims 1–3, 5, 9, 17, 20, and 21 based on anticipation by
`
`Schousek; and
`
`B.
`
`Claims 18 and 19 based on obviousness over Schousek and
`
`Blackburn;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`
`partes review of the ʼ007 patent is hereby instituted commencing on the
`
`entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds
`
`identified above. No other grounds are authorized.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01004
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Joshua A. Griswold
`Daniel Smith
`griswold@fr.com
`IPR15625-0020IP1@fr.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`Holly J. Atkinson
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`holly.atkinson@aacendalaw.com
`patents@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`19