Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: December 1, 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 Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: December 1, 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 Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01116
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On October 29, 2015, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
`(“Petitioner”) filed a Request for Rehearing (Paper 12, “Req. Reh’g”) of our
`Decision (Paper 11, “Dec.”) denying inter partes review of Petitioner’s
`challenge to U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 (Ex. 1001, “the ’007 patent”).
`Specifically, our Decision denied inter partes review of Petitioner’s
`challenge to claims 1, 17, and 19–21 based on obviousness over Cashler1
`and Schousek2. See Dec. 9–10.
`Petitioner’s Request alleges that the Board misapprehended or
`overlooked certain matters set forth in the Petition (Paper 2) and in the
`supporting Declaration of Dr. A. Bruce Buckman (Ex. 1002, “the Buckman
`Declaration”). Req. Reh’g 1.
`
`
`II.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition,
`a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Abuse of
`discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of
`law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.”
`PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567
`(Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). In its request for rehearing, the
`dissatisfied party must identify the place in the record where it previously
`addressed each matter it submits for review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`A. Alleged Inconsistencies
`Petitioner argues that our Decision in this proceeding is inconsistent
`with that in IPR2015-01004 (“the ’004 IPR”) also concerning the ’007
`patent. Req. Reh’g 2. Petitioner contends that “the Board, in this
`proceeding, found that Schousek does not disclose ‘establishing a lock
`threshold above the first threshold,’ but found, in the ’004 IPR, that
`Schousek does disclose this limitation.” Id. at 3.
`Our Decision noted that, in this proceeding,
`Petitioner does not cite to anything in Schousek teaching “establishing a first
`threshold” as required by claim 1. Rather . . . 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. [Pet.] 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.
`Dec. 8. Petitioner offers no explanation as to how its contentions in this
`proceeding are the same as those presented by the petitioner in IPR2015-
`01004. See Req. Reh’g 2–3.
`Accordingly we are not persuaded of inconsistencies in our Decision.
`B. Combination of Cashler and Schousek
`Petitioner appears to contend that we should have read the Petition as
`considering each of Cashler’s “low threshold” and “high threshold” as
`teaching the “first threshold” recited by the claims, rather than just the “high
`threshold.” Req. Reh’g 3–8. For example, Petitioner contends that “[w]ith
`respect to the ‘establishing a first threshold of the relative weight parameter’
`claim element, the Petition does not merely state that Cashler teaches a
`‘high’ threshold,” but also states that “‘Cashler teaches multiple thresholds
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01116
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`of the total calculated weight and using those thresholds in deployment
`decisions,’ namely, the ‘low’ and ‘high’ thresholds.” Id. (citing Pet. 20).
`Petitioner notes that the citations to paragraphs 12 and 21 of the Buckman
`Declaration support this position. Id. at 6–8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 12, 21).
`The cited portion of the Petition states that “Cashler teaches a ‘low’
`and a ‘high’ (i.e., a ‘first threshold’) threshold” when discussing the
`“establishing a first threshold” limitation. Pet. 20. In the following
`paragraph, when discussing the “allowing deployment when the relative
`weight parameter is above the first threshold” limitation, the Petition again
`specifically characterizes Cashler’s “high threshold” as the “first threshold”
`recited in the claims, stating that “[i]f the weight is above the high (i.e., the
`‘first threshold’) threshold then deployment is allowed.” Id. Petitioner
`attempts to support its new position that Cashler’s “low threshold” teaches
`the claimed “first threshold” by explaining that “[b]ecause the ‘high’
`threshold is necessarily greater than the ‘low’ threshold, and deployment is
`allowed when the weight is above the ‘high’ threshold, it is self-evident that
`deployment is also allowed when the weight is above the ‘low’ threshold.”
`Id. at 6.
`We are not persuaded that the Petition relied on Cashler’s “low
`threshold” as teaching the “first threshold” recited in the claims.
`Accordingly, we could not have overlooked or misapprehended this
`argument, as it was not raised in the Petition.
`Petitioner additionally appears to contend that we should have read
`the Petition as considering Schousek as teaching the “first threshold” recited
`in the claims. See Reh’g Req. 7–8. For the reasons noted above, we are not
`persuaded that Petitioner relied on anything other than Cashler’s “high
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01116
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`threshold” as corresponding to this limitation. We additionally note that the
`Petition’s claim chart cites only Cashler for the “establishing a first
`threshold” limitation. See Pet. 35–36.
`Petitioner fails to explain persuasively any further alleged error in our
`Decision. See id. at 8–9.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons stated above, Petitioner’s request for rehearing is
`denied.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Michael J. Lennon
`Clifford A. Ulrich
`Michelle Carniaux
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`ptab@kenyon.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
` 5
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
