UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`Patent No. 6,012,007
`Issue Date: January 4, 2000
`Title: OCCUPANT DETECTION METHOD AND
`APPARATUS FOR AIR BAG SYSTEM
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,012,007
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01116
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ....................................................................... 1 
`II.  Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ......................................................... 2 
`III. 
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(3)) and Relief
`Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1)) ........................................................................... 2 
`A. 
`Background of the ’007 Patent ....................................................................... 3 
`1. 
`The ’007 Patent ...................................................................................... 3 
`2. 
`Prosecution History of the ’007 Patent ............................................. 4 
`Patents and Printed Publications Relied On ................................................. 9 
`B. 
`Statutory Grounds for Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2)) .............10 
`C. 
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) ..........................................10 
`D. 
`IV.  How Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5)) .......10 
`A. 
`Claims 1, 17, and 19 to 21 are Obvious in View of the
`Combination of Cashler and Schousek .......................................................10 
`1. 
`Cashler ..................................................................................................12 
`2. 
`Schousek ...............................................................................................14 
`3. 
`The Combination of Cashler and Schousek ...................................18 
`4. 
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................................19 
`5. 
`Claim 17 ................................................................................................24 
`6. 
`Claim 19 ................................................................................................28 
`7. 
`Claim 20 ................................................................................................30 
`8. 
`Claim 21 ................................................................................................31 
`9. 
`Reasons to Combine ...........................................................................31 
`10.  Conclusions regarding Cashler and Schousek ................................33 
`Conclusion ...................................................................................................................55 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Cases 
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Ex parte DesOrmeaux, 25 U.S.P.Q.2d 2040 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) ........................ 9
`
`In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 36 U.S.P.Q.2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................. 7
`
`In re Lagenhoven, 458 F.2d 132, 136, 173 U.S.P.Q. 426, 429 (C.C.P.A. 1972) ................... 7
`
`In re Land, 368 F.2d 866, 151 U.S.P.Q. 621 (C.C.P.A. 1966) .............................................. 9
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al.,
` No. 2:14-cv-03113 (C.D. Cal.) ............................................................................................ 1
`
`Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting Inc.,
` 38 F.3d 551, 32 U.S.P.Q.2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .......................................................... 7
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b).................................................................................................................... 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ...................................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................................. 10, 54
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................................... 54
`
`Rules 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................................. 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2) ................................................................................................... 10
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(3) ..................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(3) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ......................................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ......................................................................................................... 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) ................................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) ................................................................................................... 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1) .............................................................................................................. 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1) .............................................................................................................. 2
`
`M.P.E.P. § 211.05(B) ................................................................................................................. 7
`M.P.E.P. § 211.05(B) ................................................................................................................. 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit 1001
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`Exhibit 1007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 to Fortune et al.
`
`Declaration of Dr. A. Bruce Buckman
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 to Cashler
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327 to Schousek
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,926,332 to Komuro et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,232,243 to Blackburn et al.
`
`Order Regarding Claim Construction, D.I. 88, in Signal IP, Inc. v.
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-
`03113-JAK (JEMx) (C.D. Cal.)
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`
`Real Party-in-Interest:
`
` Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“VWGoA”), which is a subsidiary of
`
`Volkswagen AG.
`
`Related Matters:
`
`The following judicial matters may affect, or may be affected by, a decision in this
`
`inter partes review: Signal IP, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-
`
`03113 (C.D. Cal.) (“the Signal-VWGoA case”), naming as defendants VWGoA, d/b/a
`
`Audi of America, Inc., and Bentley Motors, Inc., which is a subsidiary of VWGoA;
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-02454 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al., No. 2:14-cv-03111 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-03108 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Kia Motors America, Inc. No. 2:14-cv-02457 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v.
`
`Mazda Motor of America, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-00491 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Mercedes-
`
`Benz USA, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-03109 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc., v. Mitsubishi Motors
`
`North America, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-00497 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Nissan North
`
`America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02962 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Porsche Cars North America,
`
`Inc., No. 2:14-cv-03114 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Subaru of America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-
`
`02963 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-
`
`03107 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Fiat USA, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-03105 (C.D. Cal);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:14-cv-03106 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v.
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Mazda Motor of America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02459 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Chrysler
`
`Group LLC, No. 2:14-cv-13864 (E.D. Mich.); and Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company,
`
`No. 2:14-cv-13729 (E.D. Mich.).
`
`The following administrative matters may affect, or may be affected by, a decision
`
`in this inter partes review: IPR Trial No. 2015-01004 and U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375.
`
`Counsel:
`
` Lead Counsel:
`
` Michael J. Lennon (Reg. No. 26,562)
`
` Backup Counsel: Clifford A. Ulrich (Reg. No. 42,194)
`Michelle Carniaux (Reg. No. 36,098)
`
`Electronic Service: ptab@kenyon.com
`
`Post and Delivery: Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, One Broadway, New York NY 10004.
`
`Telephone: 212-425-7200 Facsimile: 212-425-5288
`
`II. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
` VWGoA certifies that U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 (“the ’007 patent”) for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that VWGoA is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claim on the
`
`grounds identified in this petition.
`
`III. Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(3)) and Relief
`Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1))
` VWGoA challenges claims 1, 17, and 19 to 21 of the ’007 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103, and cancelation of those claims is requested.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`A. Background of the ’007 Patent
`1.
` The ’007 Patent
` The ’007 patent is titled “Occupant Detection Method and Apparatus for Air Bag
`
`System” and issued on January 4, 2000 from U.S. Patent Application Serial No.
`
`08/868,338 (“the ’338 application”), filed June 3, 1997.
`
` The ’007 patent relates to occupant restraints for vehicles and particularly to a
`
`method using seat sensors to determine seat occupancy for control of the deployment
`
`of supplemental inflatable restraints (SIRs) or vehicle airbags. See col. 1, lines 10 to 12,
`
`col. 1, lines 52 to 55. According to the ’007 patent, because airbags are designed for
`
`adult passengers, “it is preferred to disable the passenger side airbag when a small
`
`person occupies the seat or when the seat is empty.” Col. 1, lines 22 to 30. Further,
`
`the ’007 patent describes that it is desirable to operate “under dynamic conditions
`
`such as occupant shifting or bouncing due to rough roads.” Col. 1, lines 44 to 48. In
`
`purporting to discriminate between large and small seat occupants, the ’007 patent
`
`describes that a number of sensors, located in the passenger seat of the vehicle, are
`
`coupled with a microprocessor that interprets the data and determines whether to
`
`allow or inhibit deployment of an airbag based on the detected occupant size. See col.
`
`1, line 66 to col. 2, line 10.
`
`
`
`Specifically, the ’007 patent describes the use of an “Adult Lock Flag.” The ’007
`
`patent describes that “When the Adult Lock Flag is set, the output decision will
`
`always be to allow deployment.” Col. 4, lines 40 to 41. In the setting of the Adult
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Lock Flag, a lock threshold is used which is above a “total force” threshold range (i.e.,
`
`exceeding which also allows airbag deployment). Col. 4, lines 41 to 44. An unlock
`
`threshold “represents an empty seat.” Id. If a decision filter is at its maximum
`
`(indicating a decision to allow deployment), the total force is greater than the lock
`
`threshold, and the lock timer (which measures the time since the vehicle ignition is
`
`turned on) is larger than the lock delay, a flag value is increased toward a maximum
`
`value and the Adult Lock Flag is set. See col. 4, lines 46 to 50. Otherwise, the system
`
`determines whether the total force is above the unlock threshold, and if not, whether
`
`the total force is below the unlock threshold and the flag value is greater than zero. See
`
`col. 4, lines 50 to 54. If so, the flag value is decremented toward zero, and in either
`
`case, the flag value is tested; if the value is above zero, the Adult Lock Flag is set, and
`
`if the value is zero, the Adult Lock Flag is cleared. See col. 4, lines 50 to 57.
`
`2.
` Prosecution History of the ’007 Patent
` As filed, the ’338 application included 27 claims, of which claims 1, 16, and 17
`
`were the only independent claims. Claims 1, 16, and 17 were the same claims that
`
`would eventually issue in the ’007 patent.
`
` On April 5, 1999, the USPTO issued an Office Action, in which all of the claims
`
`were rejected as obvious in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 (“Cashler,” Ex. 1003).
`
`In the Office Action, the Examiner stated:
`
`Cashler teaches in a vehicle restraint system having a controller for
`deploying air bags and means for selectively allowing deployment
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`according to seat sensors’ outputs responding to an occupant’s weight
`(col 1, lines 6 - 8), a method of allowing and inhibiting deployment
`(Title) including the steps of determining measures represented by
`individual sensor outputs and calculating from the outputs a relative
`weight parameter (at least col 2, lines 1-2 and 12 - 21), establishing a first
`threshold of the weight parameter and allowing deployment when the
`weight is above the threshold (col 5, lines 12 - 14 and 40 - 48),
`establishing and setting a threshold lock flag (utilizing fuzzy logic m
`system 14 when the seat is occupied) in order to allow deployment upon
`detecting the occupant’s weight is above the threshold (see fig 8, note col
`5, lines 12 - 18), establishing an unlock threshold at a level indicative of
`an empty seat (col 3, lines 48 - 54), inhibiting deployment when the
`relative weight parameter is below a second threshold (<72> in fig 8, col
`3, lines 60/61 and col 5, lines 12 - 21), Cashler’s relative weight
`parameter is the total force detected by all the sensors (col 2, lines 1 - 11,
`col 3, lines 49 - 51).
`
`Office Action, page 4.
`
` On July 6, 1999, the Applicants submitted an Amendment in response to this
`
`Office Action, arguing that the claims of the ’338 application “recite subject matter
`
`that is neither shown nor suggested in” Cashler. Specifically, the Applicant argued:
`
`While the Cashler patent admittedly is foundational to the present
`invention, the rejected claims recite non-obvious enhancements in the
`form of apparatus and method steps which are particularly useful for
`discriminating between heavy and light occupants under dynamic
`conditions due, for example, to occupant shifting or bouncing. Such
`enhancements are neither shown nor suggested in Cashler. Independent
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`method Claims 1 and 16 both recite 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. Independent apparatus Claim 17 includes nearly identical
`recitations, but in the context of functions performed by a programmed
`microprocessor. These steps/functions are not found in Cashler, rather,
`they enhance Cashler by addressing dynamic operating conditions not
`even recognized in the Cashler patent. The remaining claims depend,
`either directly or indirectly from Claims 1 or 17, and are patentable over
`Cashler for at least the same reasons as the independent claims.
`Accordingly, Cashler cannot obviate the subject matter of Claims 1-27,
`the rejection under 35 USC 103(a) is in error and should be withdrawn.
`
`Amendment, pages 3 to 4. 1
`
`
`1 The Applicants also amended the Specification to claim that the ’338 application is
`
`a continuation-in-part of Cashler and argued that Cashler “cannot rightfully be used as
`
`a reference against the present application.” Amendment, page 4. However, “if a claim
`
`in a continuation-in-part application recites a feature which was not disclosed or
`
`adequately supported by a proper disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent
`
`nonprovisional application, but which was first introduced or adequately supported in
`
`the continuation-in-part application, such a claim is entitled only to the filing date of
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
` The USPTO issued a Notice of Allowance on August 17, 1999, which included the
`
`following statement by the Examiner of reasons for allowance (essentially parroting
`
`the claim language):
`
`As specifically claimed, the art of record fall [sic] short of a method in a
`vehicle restraint system having a controller for deploying air bags and
`means for selectively allowing and inhibiting the deployment in
`accordance with the occupancy of a seat by a person of at least a
`minimum weight, the system comprising seat sensors responding to the
`weight of the person to produce sensor outputs and a microprocessor
`coupled to the sensor outputs and programmed to inhibit and allow and
`to determine measures represented by individual sensor outputs and
`calculate from the sensor outputs a relative weight parameter - the
`relative weight parameter being a total load rating of the sensors,
`establish a first threshold of the relative weight parameter, allow
`deployment when the relative weight parameter is above the first
`threshold, establish a lock threshold above the first threshold, set a lock
`flag when the relative weight parameter is above the lock threshold and
`
`the continuation-in-part application.” M.P.E.P. § 211.05(B) (citing In re Chu, 66 F.3d
`
`292, 36 U.S.P.Q.2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting
`
`Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 U.S.P.Q.2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Lagenhoven, 458 F.2d 132,
`
`136, 173 U.S.P.Q. 426, 429 (C.C.P.A. 1972). Therefore, the claims of the ’007 patent
`
`are not entitled to a filing date earlier than the June 3, 1997 filing date of the ’338
`
`application.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`deployment has been allowed for a given time, establish an unlock
`threshold at a level indicative of an empty seat, clear the flag when the
`relative weight parameter is below the unlock threshold for a time, and
`allow deployment while the lock flag is set.
`
`In the above system, the microprocessor is further programmed to
`calculate a load rating for each sensor as a function of the difference
`between the sensor output and a base value, sum the load rating for all
`the sensors to derive a total load rating, periodically increment a flag
`value toward a maximum value when the relative weight parameter is
`above the lock threshold, periodically decrement the flag value toward
`zero when the relative weight parameter is less than the unlock
`threshold, set the lock flag when the flag value is greater than zero and
`clear the flag is zero so that the flag value determines at any time the
`minimum time for clearing the flag.
`
`Notice of Allowance, pages 2 to 3.
`
` The Applicants paid the issue fee on October 15, 1999, without making any
`
`comment on the Examiner’s stated reasons for allowance, and the ’007 patent issued
`
`with claims 1, 17, and 19 to 21 as they were originally filed.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Patents and Printed Publications Relied On
`1. Cashler, filed on December 1, 1995 and issued on March 24, 1998 and
`
`therefore constitutes prior art against the ’007 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e).2
`
`
`2 While the Applicants argued during the prosecution of the ’007 patent that Cashler
`
`is not prior art because the ’007 patent claims to be a continuation-in-part of Cashler,
`
`that argument is fundamentally incorrect. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) specified that “a
`
`patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States
`
`before the invention by the applicant for patent” constituted prior art. As Cashler was
`
`filed before the ’338 application, and does not have the same inventors as the ’007
`
`patent—Duane Donald Fortune is listed as an inventor of the ’007 patent but is not
`
`listed as an inventor of Cashler—it is prior art under § 102(e). The fact that the ’007
`
`patent and Cashler have one inventor in common is immaterial to this determination.
`
`See In re Land, 368 F.2d 866, 151 U.S.P.Q. 621 (C.C.P.A. 1966); Ex parte DesOrmeaux,
`
`25 U.S.P.Q.2d 2040 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). And, as stated above, the
`
`Applicants conceded that Cashler does not disclose all of the limitations claimed in
`
`the ’007 patent, thereby admitting that the claims of the ’007 patent are not entitled to
`
`the filing date of Cashler.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327 (“Schousek,” Ex. 1004), issued on December
`
`12, 1995 and therefore constitutes prior art against the ’007 patent under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`C. Statutory Grounds for Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2))
` Cancelation of claims 1, 17, and 19 to 21 is requested on the following ground:
`
`1. The Combination of Cashler and Schousek Renders Obvious Claims 1,
`17, and 19 to 21 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`D. Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3))
` The claim terms should be given their broadest reasonable construction in view of
`
`the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim terms are generally presumed to take
`
`on their ordinary and customary meaning. The specification of the ’007 patent does
`
`not present any special definition for any claim term, and the prosecution history of
`
`the ’007 patent does not include any claim construction arguments.
`
` The District Court in the Signal-VWGoA case issued a claim construction order
`
`that addresses several terms of the claims of the ’007 patent. See Ex. 1007. However,
`
`the District Court’s claim construction is not binding on the PTAB.
`
`IV. How Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5))
`A. Claims 1, 17, and 19 to 21 are Obvious in View of the Combination of
`Cashler and Schousek
` Claims 1, 17, and 19 to 21 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the
`
`combination of Cashler and Schousek.
`
` As noted above, Cashler describes an airbag deployment system having seat
`
`sensors for determining seat occupancy for control of airbag deployment, and the
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Examiner, during the original prosecution of the ’007 patent, initially rejected claims 1,
`
`17, and 19 to 21 as obvious in view of Cashler. The Applicants acknowledged that
`
`Cashler is “foundational” to the ’007 patent, and the Applicants argued that certain
`
`“enhancements are neither shown nor suggested in Cashier:” “(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.” Amendment, pages 3 to 4.
`
`
`
`Schousek was not cited by the Examiner or the Applicants during prosecution of
`
`the ’007 patent, and, as further described below, in combination with Cashler, teaches
`
`the “enhancements” identified by the Applicants as being missing from Cashler.
`
` As explained in detail herein, both Cashler and Schousek relate to airbag
`
`deployment systems using seat sensors to determine seat occupancy for control of
`
`airbag deployment. Cashler describes an airbag system for a vehicle that determines
`
`whether to allow or inhibit airbag deployment. Cashler describes seat sensors for
`
`measuring the weight of an occupant, and a microprocessor coupled to the sensor
`
`outputs and programmed to determine the total weight of an occupant and inhibit or
`
`allow airbag deployment. Deployment is allowed when the total weight is above a
`
`certain threshold (a “:high threshold”); deployment is inhibited when the total weight
`
`is below another threshold (a “low threshold”).
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Schousek describes a vehicle airbag system that has seat sensors to identify
`
`whether a seat is occupied, and to determine whether to allow the vehicle’s passenger
`
`seat airbag to deploy based on whether the passenger seat is occupied, and based on
`
`the occupant’s type (e.g., adult or child) and position. Schousek teaches that a decision
`
`as to whether airbag deployment should be allowed or inhibited is made each second.
`
`The decision is based on whether the weight is above or below thresholds indicative
`
`of an adult occupant or an empty seat. However, a decision is transmitted to the
`
`controller which controls airbag deployment only once the same decision is made five
`
`consecutive times, i.e., for five seconds. Moreover, once a decision is transmitted, that
`
`decision remains the decision until five consecutive decisions indicate that the
`
`opposite decision should be transmitted to the controller. Thus, a decision is “locked”
`
`until conditions indicating an opposite decision have been detected five consecutive
`
`times, at which time the decision is “unlocked” and the new decision is “locked.”
`
` Accordingly, the prior art considered by the Examiner during prosecution (i.e.,
`
`Cashler) teaches the basic method and system claimed in the ’007 patent, and the
`
`additional prior art
`
`identified
`
`in
`
`this petition
`
`(i.e., Schousek)
`
`teaches
`
`the
`
`“enhancements” that the Applicants argued were not disclosed by Cashler.
`
`1. Cashler
` Cashler teaches a method of inhibiting or allowing vehicle airbag deployment using
`
`an array of pressure sensors arranged on a vehicle passenger seat coupled to a
`
`microprocessor which analyzes the sensor load forces and then determines whether to
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`allow or inhibit airbag deployment. Ex. 1003, Abstract; Ex. 1002, ¶ 7. According to
`
`Cashler, the passenger seat of a vehicle, “however, may be occupied by a large or a
`
`small occupant including a baby in an infant seat,” and in some instances, such as
`
`when a forward facing infant seat is on the passenger seat, it may not be beneficial to
`
`deploy a vehicle airbag. Ex. 1003, col. 1, lines 12 to 29 and lines 51 to 58; Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`8. Cashler teaches that having “a dozen sensors, judicially located in the seat, can
`
`garner sufficient pressure and distribution information to allow determination of the
`
`occupant type and infant seat position,” and that “this information, in turn, can be
`
`used as desired to inhibit SIR deployment.” Ex. 1003, col. 1, lines 59 to 63; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶ 8. Casher further teaches that “a microprocessor is programmed to sample each
`
`sensor, [and] determine a total weight parameter by summing the pressures.” Ex.
`
`1003, col. 1, line 67 to 2, line 2; Ex. 1002, ¶ 10.
`
` Cashler teaches that a deployment decision is made in accordance with the
`
`algorithm shown in Figure 8, reproduced below:
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` According to Cashler, after the microprocessor determines the total force present
`
`on the vehicle passenger seat, “the total force is compared to high and low thresholds
`
`<68>. If it is above the high threshold deployment is allowed and if below the low
`
`threshold the deployment is inhibited.” Ex. 1003, col. 5, line 12 to 15; Ex. 1002, ¶ 12.
`
`2. Schousek
`Schousek teaches a system for a vehicle that determines whether to allow the
`
`
`
`vehicle’s passenger seat airbag to deploy based on whether the passenger seat is
`
`occupied, and based on the occupant’s type (e.g., adult or child) and position. See Ex.
`
`1004, Abstract, col. 1, lines 53 to 59; Ex. 1002, ¶ 14.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
` The ’007 patent discusses Schousek in its Background section, and states that
`
`Schousek describes “incorporate[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, col.
`
`1, lines 35 to 38. The ’007 patent characterizes Schousek as “a foundation for the
`
`present invention” but purports to distinguish Schousek by stating 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.” Id., col. 1, lines
`
`43 to 48. However, contrary to the Applicants’ argument, Schousek does describe
`
`techniques for discriminating between heavy and light objects (e.g., between infants
`
`and adults) and for operating under dynamic conditions by filtering out “spurious”
`
`decisions which, as Schousek describes, “may be due to occupant movement or other
`
`instability.” Ex. 1004, col. 6, lines 2 to 5; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 17-25.
`
` For example, Schousek teaches using certain weight thresholds to determine the
`
`type of occupant that occupies the seat. According to Schousek, the thresholds may
`
`be, e.g., 50 pounds for an adult and, e.g., 10 pounds as a minimum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat. Ex. 1004, col. 4, lines 62 to 66; Ex. 1002, ¶ 15. The system
`
`includes a number of sensors in a vehicle passenger seat and a microprocessor to
`
`interpret the information received from the sensors and to determine whether to
`
`allow a vehicle airbag to deploy. Ex. 1004, col. 5, lines 17 to 21; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 16-17.
`15
`
`

`

`
`
` Referring to Figure 5A, Schousek teaches that the first step for the microprocessor
`
`is to determine the total force or weight parameter for a passenger seat. Ex. 1004, col.
`
`5, lines 28 to 3; Ex. 1002, ¶ 17. If the total weight is greater than the threshold for a
`
`maximum infant seat weight, this indicates the presence of an adult and a decision is
`
`made to allow airbag deployment. Ex. 1004, col. 5, lines 32 to 35; Ex. 1002, ¶ 17.
`
`Schousek also describes using a second weight threshold to determine whether
`
`deployment should be permitted. Ex. 1004, col. 5, lines 35 to 42; Ex. 1002, ¶ 17.
`
`According to Schousek, “a sampling of the sensors and a deployment decision is
`
`made periodically, say each second.” Ex. 1004, col. 2, lines 47 to 48; Ex. 1002, ¶ 19.
`
`Figure 5A is reproduced below:
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Schousek also teaches monitoring the consistency of the decisions and keeping a
`
`previous decision until at least five consecutive contrary decisions are made. Ex. 1004,
`
`2, lines 50 to 53; Ex. 1002, ¶ 20. For example, Schousek teaches that the
`
`microprocessor stores the decision made in each loop execution and using a decision
`
`counter to count the number of consistent decisions. Only after the counter counts
`
`five consistent decisions is a decision used to deploy or not deploy the vehicle airbag.
`
`Ex. 1004, col. 5, lines 51 to 64; Ex. 1002, ¶ 20. This process is illustrated in Figure 5B,
`
`which is reproduced below:
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`3. The Combination of Cashler and Schousek
` The combination of Cashler and Schousek renders obvious claims 1, 17, and 19 to
`
`21. The combination of Cashler and Schousek teaches all of the limitations of claims
`
`1, 17, and 19 to 21, including the “enhancements” that the Applicants argued during
`
`the prosecution of the ’007 patent are not disclosed by Cashler, i.e., “(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.” Amendment, pages 3 to 4.
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`4. Claim 1
`i. “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”
` The combination of Cashler and Schousek teaches “[i]n a vehicle restraint system
`
`having a controlle