Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: September 29, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01116
`Patent 6,012,007
`_______________
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
`JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: September 29, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01116
`Patent 6,012,007
`_______________
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
`JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01116
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Background
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to
`institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 17, and 19–21 (“the challenged
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 (Ex. 1001, “the ’007 patent”). Paper
`2 (“Pet.”). Signal IP, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 5 (“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 do not institute an inter partes review in this proceeding.
`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. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-03113 (C.D.
`Cal.). Pet. 1–2; Paper 4, 2–3.
`C. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability and Evidence of Record
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 based on obviousness over Cashler1 and Schousek2.
`Pet. 10–54.
`Petitioner also provides testimony from A. Bruce Buckman, Ph.D.
`Ex. 1002 (“the Buckman Declaration”).
`
`
`1 U.S. Pat. No. 5,732,375, iss. Mar. 24, 1998 (Ex. 1003, “Cashler”).
`2 U.S. Pat. No. 5,474,327, iss. Dec. 12, 1995 (Ex. 1004, “Schousek”).
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01116
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`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
`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
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01116
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`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, 17, and 19–21.
`Claims 1 and 17 are independent claims, with claims 19–21 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;
`allowing deployment when the relative weight parameter is
`above the first threshold;
`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;
`
`the relative weight
`
`threshold of
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01116
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`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).
`Petitioner contends that “[t]he claim terms should be given their
`broadest reasonable construction in view of the specification,” without
`proposing a specific construction for any particular claim term. Pet. 10.
`Patent Owner does not offer an explicit construction for any specific claim
`term. Based on the information before us, we are not apprised of any
`particular claim term that would have a different construction under either
`standard of claim construction. At this stage of the proceeding, we
`determine that no particular term requires an express construction in order to
`conduct properly our analysis of the prior art.
`B. Obviousness over Cashler and Schousek
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 17, and 19–21 would have been
`obvious over Cashler and Schousek. Pet. 10–54. For the reasons discussed
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01116
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`below, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing at trial on this challenge to claims 1, 17, and 19–21.
`Cashler is directed to “a method [of] using seat sensors to determine
`seat occupancy for control of airbag deployment.” Ex. 1003, 1:6–8. Cashler
`describes determining whether to allow airbag deployment based on certain
`conditions, such as whether an infant seat is present and weight thresholds.
`Ex. 1003:4:64–5:30. For example, Cashler discusses first determining “if
`rails [on] an infant seat are detected.” Id. at 4:65–67. If rails are detected
`Cashler’s system determines “whether the seat is facing forwardly or
`rearwardly,” and allows airbag deployment for a forward facing seat and
`inhibits deployment for a rearward facing seat. Id. at 4:67–5:3. “If no rails
`are detected” (i.e., it is determined that an infant seat is not present),
`Cashler’s system compares the total force (weight applied to the seat) to
`high and low thresholds, allowing airbag deployment when the force is
`above the high threshold and inhibiting airbag deployment when the force is
`below the low threshold. Id. at 5:13–15.
`Schousek is directed to an airbag restraint system including a “seat
`occupant sensing apparatus for a passenger seat which detects both infant
`seats and adults.” Ex. 1004, Abstract. 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. Id. at 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. Schousek describes
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01116
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`monitoring the consistency of decisions regarding airbag deployment, and
`provides an example where the decision to allow deployment is updated
`every five seconds. Id. at 5:51–6:5. In 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 is the same (deploy or no deployment) 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 to determine
`airbag deployment status. Id. at 5:61–63.
`Claim 1 is directed to “a method of allowing [airbag] deployment
`according to sensor response including the steps of . . . establishing a first
`threshold of the relative weight parameter,” “establishing a lock threshold
`above the first threshold,” and “setting a lock flag when the relative weight
`parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for
`a given time.” Petitioner’s challenge relies on modifying Cashler’s system
`based on the teachings of Schousek. See Pet. 33 (“It would have been
`obvious to utilize the technique described by Schousek to filter out
`deployment decisions that could be caused by occupant movement or other
`instability in the system described by Cashler.”).
`Although the Petitioner notes that “[t]he combination of Cashler and
`Schousek teaches” each limitation of claim 1 (Pet. 19–24), for many
`limitations, Petitioner only cites one of the references for any particular
`teaching regarding that limitation (see id. at 20–24, 36–41). For example,
`with respect to “establishing a first threshold,” Petitioner contends that
`“Cashler teaches a ‘low’ and a ‘high’ (i.e., a ‘first threshold’) threshold,”
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01116
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`without further discussion of Schousek. Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:65–67,
`5:12–15). For “establishing a lock threshold above the first threshold,”
`Petitioner contends that “Schousek teaches a ‘maximum infant seat weight’
`threshold (i.e., a ‘lock threshold’) that is above the ‘minimum weight
`threshold,’” without further discussion of Cashler. Id. at 20–21 (citing Ex.
`1004, 2:31–37, 4:58–5:3).
`Rather than proposing any specific modification to Cashler, Petitioner
`identifies individual teachings in the references, and in a general manner,
`proposes “utiliz[ing] the technique described by Schousek to filter out
`deployment decisions that could be caused by occupant movement or other
`instability in the system described by Cashler.” Id. at 33. Even assuming
`that one skilled in the art would have modified Cashler’s system to include
`Schousek’s fault detection process, Petitioner fails to provide any
`explanation as to how, or even allege that, Cashler’s “high threshold” would
`be used in that process to meet the claim limitations.
`As noted above, claim 1 recites that the “lock threshold [is] above the
`first threshold.” Petitioner does not cite to anything in Schousek teaching
`“establishing a first threshold” as required by claim 1. Rather, as discussed
`above, Petitioner considers Cashler’s discussion of a “high threshold” as
`teaching “establishing a first threshold,” and Schousek’s discussion of a
`“maximum infant seat weight” as teaching “establishing a lock threshold” in
`claim 1. Id. at 20–21, 35–37. It is unclear how these teachings are
`combined in Petitioner’s challenge to provide the “lock threshold above the
`first threshold” recited in claim 1.
`Cashler’s “high threshold” corresponds to a lower limit for airbag
`deployment when an infant seat is not present. Ex. 1003, 5:12–15.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01116
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`Similarly, Schousek’s “maximum infant seat weight” is used to “indicate[]
`that a larger occupant is present and . . . to allow [airbag] deployment.” Ex.
`1004, 5:32–35. There is no explanation in the Petition as to how Schousek’s
`“maximum infant seat weight” is above Cashler’s “high threshold” in the
`proposed combination. When discussing the “lock threshold [being] above
`the first threshold,” Petitioner states that “Schousek teaches a ‘maximum
`infant seat weight’ threshold (i.e., a ‘lock threshold’) that is above the
`‘minimum weight threshold,’” but does not tie Cashler’s “high threshold”
`into the discussion of this limitation in any way. Pet. 20.
`For at least these reasons, Petitioner’s challenge to claim 1 is
`unpersuasive. 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 include the same deficiencies
`discussed above regarding claim 1. Pet. 26–27, 45–47. Accordingly, we are
`not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of
`success on its challenge to claims 1 and 17, or claims 19–21, which depend
`from claim 17, based on obviousness over Cashler and Schousek.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the
`challenged claims.
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01116
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`IV. ORDER
`For the reasons given, it is
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no inter partes review is
`instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Michael J. Lennon
`Clifford A. Ulrich
`Michelle Carniaux
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`ptab@kenyon.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`10
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
