throbber
Paper No. ____________
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________________________________________
`
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`Filing Date: June 3, 1997
`
`Issue Date: January 4, 2000
`
`Title: OCCUPANT DETECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AIR
`
`BAG SYSTEMS
`
`______________________________________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: To be Assigned
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`CLAIMS 1-3, 5, 9, AND 17-21 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,012,007
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(B) .............................. 2
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ........................... 2
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .................................... 2
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................. 4
`
`D.
`
`Service Information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ............................... 4
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(A) ................................... 4
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................ 5
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................ 5
`
`B.
`
`Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b) and Relief ............................. 5
`
`C.
`
`The Effective Priority Date of the ‘007 Patent..................................... 7
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8
`
`V. AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ‘007 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE .......................................................................................... 9
`
`A. GROUND 1— Claim 1-3, 5, 9, 17, 20, and 21 are unpatentable
`over Schousek under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................. 9
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Schousek ................................................................ 9
`
`B. GROUND 2 - Claims 18-19 are unpatentable over Schousek in
`view of Blackburn under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ......................................... 32
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Blackburn ............................................................. 32
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 41
`
`
`
`
`
`7236681 v1
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Nissan-1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 to Fortune et al. (“‘007 Patent”)
`
`Nissan-1002
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ‘007 Patent
`
`(“Prosecution History”)
`
`Nissan-1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Kirsten M. Carr (“Carr Declaration”)
`
`Nissan-1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327 (“Schousek”)
`
`Nissan-1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,232,243 (“Blackburn”)
`
`Nissan-1006
`
`Corrected Joint Claim Construction Brief, Signal IP, Inc. v.
`
`Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 2-14-cv-02962
`
`Document 70 (“Joint Claim Construction Brief”)
`
`7236681 v1
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Through counsel, real party-in-interest Nissan North America, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner” or “Nissan”) hereby petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et. seq. of claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 17-
`
`21 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 (“the ‘007 Patent”). As
`
`explained in this petition, there exists a reasonable likelihood that Nissan will
`
`prevail in demonstrating unpatentability with respect to at least one of the
`
`Challenged Claims based on teachings set forth in at least the references presented
`
`in this Petition. Nissan respectfully submits that an IPR should be instituted and
`
`that the Challenged Claims should be canceled as unpatentable.
`
`Nissan files this Petition along with a Motion for Joinder with Case
`
`IPR2015-01004, in which Inter Partes Review was instituted on October 1, 2015.
`
`This Petition is narrowly drafted to challenge only claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 17-21 and
`
`only on the grounds of unpatentability (Grounds 1 and 2) on which the Board
`
`instituted trial. Thus, this Petition is in all material respects the same as Grounds 1
`
`and 2 of the petition in Case IPR2015-01004 – no new arguments, no new patent
`
`claims, and no new grounds of unpatentability are added to this Petition.
`
`
`
`7236681 v1
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(b)
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner, Nissan North America, Inc., is a real party-in-interest. Nissan
`
`Motor Company, Ltd., is also a real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`The following judicial or administrative matters may affect or be affected by
`
`a decision in this proceeding: Signal IP, Inc. v. Fiat U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 2-
`
`14-cv-13864, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, filed
`
`on October 7, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company,
`
`Case No. 2-14-cv-13729, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
`
`Michigan, filed on September 26, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford
`
`Motor Company, Case No. 2-14-cv-03106, in the U.S. District Court for the
`
`Central District of California, filed on April 23, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP,
`
`Inc. v. Fiat USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 2-14-cv-03105, in the U.S. District Court for
`
`the Central District of California, filed on April 23, 2014, currently pending; Signal
`
`IP, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. d/b/a Audi of America, Inc. et al.,
`
`Case No. 2-14-cv-03113, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
`
`California, filed on April 23, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. BMW of
`
`North America, LLC et al., Case No. 2-14-cv-03111, in the U.S. District Court for
`
`the Central District of California, filed on April 23, 2014, currently pending; Signal
`
`IP, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al., Case No. 2-14-cv-03109, in the U.S.
`
`7236681 v1
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`District Court for the Central District of California, filed on April 23, 2014,
`
`currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 2-14-cv-
`
`02962, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed on
`
`April 17, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Subaru of America, Inc., Case
`
`No. 2-14-cv-02963, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
`
`filed on April 17, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Kia Motors America,
`
`Inc., Case No. 2-14-cv-02457, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
`
`California, filed on April 1, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. American
`
`Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al., Case No. 2-14-cv-02454, in the U.S. District Court
`
`for the Central District of California, filed on April 1, 2014, currently pending;
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Case No. 8-14-cv-00491, in the
`
`U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed on April 1, 2014,
`
`currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Case No. 2-14-
`
`cv-02459, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed on
`
`April 1, 2014, currently pending; Takata Seat Belts In v. Delphi Automotive Sys, et
`
`al., Case No. 5-04-cv-00464, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
`
`Texas, filed on May 27, 2004; Signal IP, Inc. v. Toyota North America, Inc., et al.,
`
`Case No. 2-15-cv-5162, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
`
`California, filed on July 8, 2015, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Hyundai
`
`Motor America, Case No. 2-15-cv-5166, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
`
`7236681 v1
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`District of California, filed on July 8, 2015, currently pending; and Signal IP, Inc.
`
`v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8-15-cv-1085, in the U.S. District Court for
`
`the Central District of California, filed on July 8, 2015, currently pending.
`
`The 007 Patent additionally is and/or has been subject to the following IPR
`
`proceedings: IPR2015-01004 (instituted), and IPR2015-01116 (denied institution).
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Nissan provides the following designation of counsel:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Tawni L. Wilhelm
`Reg. No. 47,456
`twilhelm@shb.com
`Phone: 816-474-6550
`
`
`BACK-UP LEAD COUNSEL
`Patrick A. Lujin
`Reg. No. 35,260
`plujin@shb.com
`Phone: 816-474-6550
`
`D.
`
`Service Information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Nissan may be served by mail or hand delivery to: Shook, Hardy &
`
`Bacon L.L.P., 2555 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, MO 64108-5547. The fax number
`
`for lead and backup counsel is (816) 421-5547. Ms. Wilhelm is available for
`
`electronic service by email at twilhelm@shb.com. Mr. Lujin is available for
`
`electronic service by email at plujin@shb.com.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)
`
`Nissan authorizes charges to Deposit Account No. 19-2112 for the fee set in
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition and for any related additional fees.
`
`7236681 v1
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Nissan certifies that the ‘007 Patent is available for IPR and that Nissan is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging any claim of the ‘007
`
`Patent. Specifically, Nissan states that: (1) Nissan does not own the ‘007 Patent;
`
`(2) Nissan has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the
`
`‘007 Patent; and (3) this Petition is accompanied by a Motion for Joinder with
`
`Case IPR2015-01004 and is filed within one (1) month of the October 1, 2015
`
`decision instituting Inter Partes Review in Case IPR2015-01004.
`
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b) and Relief
`
`Nissan requests an IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds set forth in
`
`the table shown below and requests that each of the Challenged Claims be found
`
`unpatentable. An explanation of how these claims are unpatentable under the
`
`statutory grounds identified below is provided in the form of the detailed
`
`description that follows, indicating where each claim element can be found in the
`
`cited prior art, and the relevance of that prior art, including explanations related to
`
`obviousness. Additional explanation and support for each ground of rejection is set
`
`forth in Exhibit Nissan-1003, the Declaration of Dr. Kirsten M. Carr (hereinafter
`
`the “Carr Declaration”), referenced throughout this Petition.
`
`5
`
`
`
`7236681 v1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`Ground
`Ground 1
`
`‘007 Patent Claims
`1-3, 5, 9, 17, 20, 21
`
`Ground 2
`
`18-19
`
`Basis for Rejection
`Anticipated by Schousek under 35
`U.S.C. § 102
`
`Obvious over Schousek in view of
`Blackburn under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`
`
`
`
`The ‘007 Patent issued on January 4, 2000, from U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 08/868,338 (See Ex. Nissan-1002 (‘007 Prosecution History), which was filed
`
`June 3, 1997. The ‘007 Patent is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,732,375 (hereinafter the “‘375 Patent”), which was filed December 1, 1995. As
`
`discussed in detail in Section III (C) below, the claims of the ‘007 Patent are not
`
`supported by the earlier ‘375 Patent, and thus are not entitled to the earlier priority
`
`date. Therefore, the earliest possible priority date of the ‘007 Patent is June 3, 1997
`
`(hereinafter the “Critical Date”).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327 to Schousek (hereinafter “Schousek,” Ex. Nissan-
`
`1004) qualifies as prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Schousek issued from
`
`a U.S. patent application filed on December 12, 1995, more than one year before
`
`the Critical Date, and thus is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,232,243 to Blackburn (hereinafter “Blackburn,” Ex.
`
`Nissan-1005) qualifies as prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b).
`
`Blackburn issued on August 3, 1993, more than one year before the Critical Date,
`
`and thus is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`7236681 v1
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`C. The Effective Priority Date of the ‘007 Patent
`
`The Challenged Claims of the ‘007 Patent include subject matter not
`
`supported by the application to which the ‘007 Patent claims priority, and therefore
`
`are not entitled to the earlier claimed priority date of December 1, 1995.
`
`The ‘007 Patent issued based on an application filed June 3, 1997. See Ex.
`
`Nissan-1001 (‘007 Patent), Face; see also Ex. Nissan-1002 (‘007 Prosecution
`
`History). The ‘007 Patent is a continuation-in-part of the ‘375 Patent which was
`
`filed on December 1, 1995. See Ex. Nissan-1001 (‘007 Patent), Face. The ‘007
`
`Patent originally did not claim priority back to the ‘375 Patent. See Ex. Nissan-
`
`1002 (‘007 Prosecution History), June 3, 1997 Original Application, at p. 1. The
`
`examiner rejected the independent claims as being “unpatentable over” the ‘375
`
`Patent. See id., April 9, 1999 Office Action, at p. 3, ¶ 6–p. 4, ¶ 7. In response, the
`
`Patent Owner amended the application to include the priority claim and argued that
`
`the ‘007 Patent was “entitled to be considered as a continuation-in-part of the”
`
`‘375 Patent. See id., July 9, 1999 Amendment, at pp. 2-4 The Patent Owner further
`
`argued that the claims of the patent “recite subject matter that is neither shown nor
`
`suggested” in the ‘375 Patent. See id., July 6, 1999 Amendment, at p. 3 (emphasis
`
`added). In particular, the Patent Owner admitted that the ‘375 Patent does not
`
`describe “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
`
`7236681 v1
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`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” as recited in the independent claims of the ‘007 Patent. Id., July 6, 1999
`
`Amendment, at p. 4. Accordingly, Petitioner submits that the claims of the ‘007
`
`Patent are not entitled to the earlier filing date of the ‘375 Patent, and that the
`
`earliest effective filing date of the ‘007 Patent is June 3, 1997 (its actual filing
`
`date).
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), claims in an unexpired patent are
`
`given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which it appears. No 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. Further details of how the claims
`
`are being interpreted are discussed in the relevant sections below.
`
`Petitioner expressly reserves the right to advance different constructions in
`
`the matter now pending in district court, as the applicable claim construction
`
`standard for that proceeding (“ordinary and customary meaning”) is different than
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (“BRI”) applied in IPR. Further,
`
`7236681 v1
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`due to the different claim construction standards in the proceedings, Petitioner
`
`identifying any feature in the cited references as teaching a claim term of the ‘007
`
`Patent is not an admission by Petitioner that that claim term is met by any feature
`
`for infringement purposes.
`
`Petitioner also maintains that several terms in the claims of ‘007 Patent are
`
`indefinite, but since issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112 may not be raised in Inter Partes
`
`Review proceedings, Petitioner has attempted to interpret all claim terms.
`
`Petitioner expressly reserves the right to raise the issue of indefiniteness should the
`
`issue arise in this or other proceedings.
`
`V. AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE
`UNPATENTABLE
`
`‘007 PATENT
`
`IS
`
`A. GROUND 1— Claim 1-3, 5, 9, 17, 20, and 21 are unpatentable
`over Schousek under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Schousek
`
`Schousek describes “[a]n air bag restraint system is equipped with seat
`
`occupant sensing apparatus for a passenger seat which detects both infant seats and
`
`adults and distinguishes between rear and forward facing infant seats.” Ex. Nissan-
`
`1004 (Schousek) at Abstract. “Air bag deployment is inhibited . . . . when an
`
`occupied rear facing infant seat is present.” Id.
`
`The ‘007 Patent discusses Schousek in its Background section, stating that
`
`Schousek describes “incorporat[ing] pressure sensors in the passenger seat and
`
`monitor[ing] the response of the sensors by a microprocessor to evaluate the
`
`7236681 v1
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`weight and weight distribution, and for inhibiting deployment in certain cases.” Ex.
`
`Nissan-1001 (‘007 Patent) at 1:35-38. The ‘007 Patent characterizes Schousek as
`
`“a foundation for [its] invention” but states 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,” thereby implying that these
`
`features are absent in Schousek. Id. at 1:43-48 (emphasis added). However, as
`
`described in detail below, Schousek describes techniques for discriminating
`
`between heavy and light objects (e.g., between infants and adults) and for “filtering
`
`out . . . occasional spurious [air bag enablement] decisions, which may be due to
`
`occupant movement or other instability[.]” Ex. Nissan-1004 (Schousek) at 6:2-5
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`The following sections provide example disclosure from Schousek that
`
`anticipates claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 17-21 of the ‘007 Patent, as well as explanations of
`
`how each portion of the reference applies to each limitation of the claims.
`
`
`
`7236681 v1
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`
`The following claim chart identifies example disclosure in Schousek that
`
`teaches the elements of claim 1:
`
`Claim Language
`
`Schousek
`
`[1.0]: “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”
`
`See, e.g., Ex. Nissan-1004
`(Schousek) at 5:32-39, FIG. 5A;
`Ex. Nissan-1003 (Carr
`Declaration) at ¶¶ 15-16.
`
`[1.1]: “determining measures represented by
`individual sensor outputs and calculating
`from the sensor outputs a relative weight
`parameter”
`
`See, e.g., Ex. Nissan-1004
`(Schousek) at Abstract, 4:51-60;
`Ex. Nissan-1003 (Carr
`Declaration) at ¶ 17.
`
`[1.2]: “establishing a first threshold of the
`relative weight parameter”
`
`[1.3]: “allowing deployment when the
`relative weight parameter is above the first
`threshold”
`
`[1.4]: “establishing a lock threshold above
`the first threshold”
`
`See, e.g., Ex. Nissan-1004
`(Schousek) at 2:31-38, 5:35-37;
`Ex. Nissan-1003 (Carr
`Declaration) at ¶ 18.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. Nissan-1004
`(Schousek) at Abstract, 2:31-34,
`5:35-50, FIG. 5A; Ex. Nissan-
`1003 (Carr Declaration) at
`¶¶ 19-22; Ground 1 at [1.1][1.2],
`supra.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. Nissan-1004
`(Schousek) at 2:31-34, 3:32-39,
`5:32-39 & 55-58; Ex. Nissan-
`1003 (Carr Declaration) at ¶ 23,
`Ground 1 at [1.3], supra.
`
`7236681 v1
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`[1.5]: “setting a lock flag when the relative
`weight parameter is above the lock threshold
`and deployment has been allowed for a given
`time”
`
`[1.6]: “establishing an unlock threshold at a
`level indicative of an empty seat”
`
`[1.7]: “clearing the flag when the relative
`weight parameter is below the unlock
`threshold for a time”
`
`[1.8]: “allowing deployment while the lock
`flag is set”
`
`See, e.g., Ex. Nissan-1004
`(Schousek) at 5:53-63, 6:2-5; Ex.
`Nissan-1003 (Carr Declaration)
`at ¶ 24; Ground 1 at [1.1], [1.4],
`supra.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. Nissan-1004
`(Schousek) at 5:36-39; Ex.
`Nissan-1003 (Carr Declaration)
`at ¶ 25.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. Nissan-1004
`(Schousek) at 5:53-63; Ex.
`Nissan-1003 (Carr Declaration)
`at ¶ 26; Ground 1 at [1.4], [1.6],
`supra.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. Nissan-1004
`(Schousek) at 5:36-39, 53-63;
`Ex. Nissan-1003 (Carr
`Declaration) at ¶ 27; Ground 1 at
`[1.5] - [1.7], supra.
`
`
`
`
`
`[1.0]: “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”
`
`As a threshold matter, in the present paper, Nissan does not assert a position
`
`as to whether the preamble of claim 1 is limiting or non-limiting, and explicitly
`
`reserves the right to assert either position in this or any other proceeding.
`
`Regardless, Schousek still teaches the limitations stated in the preamble of claim 1.
`
`7236681 v1
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`Nissan also submits that the language “means for selectively allowing
`
`deployment according to the outputs of seat sensors responding to the weight of an
`
`occupant” in claim 1 should be interpreted as a mean-plus-function limitation
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. The corresponding structure described in the ‘007 that
`
`performs the function of “selectively allowing deployment according to the outputs
`
`of seat sensors responding to the weight of an occupant” is the “microprocessor
`
`22” which “analyzes the sensor inputs and issues a decision whether to inhibit” or
`
`allow “air bag deployment” based on the algorithms of Figures 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10.
`
`See Ex. Nissan-1001 (‘007 Patent) at 3:4-7; Ex. Nissan-1003 (Carr Declaration) at
`
`¶¶ 15-16.
`
`Schousek describes an “air bag restraint system [that] is equipped with [a]
`
`seat occupant sensing apparatus for a passenger seat which detects both infant seats
`
`and adults and distinguishes between and forward facing infant seats.” Ex. Nissan-
`
`1004 (Schousek) at Abstract (emphasis added). Schousek states that “the sensing
`
`apparatus comprises eight variable resistance pressure sensors in the seat cushion.”
`
`Id. (emphasis added). A “microprocessor” monitors “the response of each sensor to
`
`occupant pressure,” and calculates a “total weight and weight distribution” for an
`
`occupant of the seat. Id. (emphasis added). Schousek describes that the detected
`
`weight from the seat sensors “is used to discriminate between an occupied infant
`
`seat, an adult and no occupant,” and that the “weight distribution is used to
`
`7236681 v1
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`distinguish between forward and rear facing infant seats.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`Ex. Nissan-1003 (Carr Declaration) at ¶ 15.
`
`If the microprocessor determines that “the total weight parameter is greater
`
`than the maximum infant seat weight <72> this indicates that a larger occupant is
`
`present and a decision is made to allow deployment <74>.” Ex. Nissan-1004
`
`(Schousek) at 5:32-35 (emphasis added). Further, if the microprocessor determines
`
`that “the total weight parameter is less than the minimum weight threshold for an
`
`occupied infant seat <76> it is determined that the seat is empty and a decision is
`
`made to inhibit deployment <78>.” Id. at 5:36-39 (emphasis added). This process
`
`is shown in FIG. 5A of Schousek (Ex. Nissan-1004) and at paragraph 16 of the
`
`Carr Declaraton (Ex. Nissan-1003):
`
`7236681 v1
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`
`Accordingly, the air bag restraint system of Schousek including a
`
`microprocessor that (i) determines current weight and weight distribution values
`
`from an array of seat sensors and (ii) determines whether to allow deployment of
`
`7236681 v1
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`the air bag based on the determined weight and weight distribution values discloses
`
`“[i]n 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” as recited in independent claim 1.
`
`[1.1]: “determining measures represented by individual sensor outputs and
`
`calculating from the sensor outputs a relative weight parameter”
`
`Schousek states that “the sensing apparatus comprises eight variable
`
`resistance pressure sensor [sic] in the seat cushion.” Ex. Nissan-1004 (Schousek) at
`
`Abstract (emphasis added); Ex. Nissan-1003 (Carr Declaration) at ¶ 17. A
`
`“microprocessor” monitors “the response of each sensor to occupant pressure,” and
`
`calculates a “total weight” parameter for an occupant of the seat from these sensor
`
`outputs. Id. (emphasis added). This total weight parameter is calculated by reading
`
`a “current voltage” produced by each sensor and “subtract[ing]” the current voltage
`
`“from [a] calibration voltage” for the sensor representing a “voltage for an empty
`
`seat condition.” Ex. Nissan-1004 (Schousek) at 4:51-56; Ex. Nissan-1003 (Carr
`
`Declaration) at ¶ 17. Schousek describes that “[t]he difference voltage then is a
`
`function of the pressure exerted on the sensor and is empirically related to actual
`
`occupant weight,” and that “the sum of measured voltage differences. . . .
`
`represents occupant weight[.]” Ex. Nissan-1004 (Schousek) at 4:58-60. Therefore,
`
`7236681 v1
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`the weight parameter is a measure of the force applied to the sensor relative to a
`
`calibrated value representing the amount of force detected when the seat is
`
`unoccupied (e.g., force applied on the sensor by fabric laid over it, or other forces).
`
`Ex. Nissan-1003 (Carr Declaration) at ¶ 17.
`
`Accordingly, to the extent that a meaning can be ascribed to the term
`
`“relative weight parameter,”1 calculating a total weight parameter based on the
`
`difference of the current voltage read from each sensors from a calibration voltage
`
`for the sensor, as taught by Schousek, discloses “determining measures represented
`
`by individual sensor outputs and calculating from the sensor outputs a relative
`
`weight parameter,” as recited in the claim.
`
`[1.2]: “establishing a first threshold of the relative weight parameter”
`
`Schousek describes establishing a “minimum weight threshold” based on
`
`“the minimum weight of an occupied infant seat (about 10 pounds)[.]” Ex. Nissan-
`
`1004 (Schousek) at 5:35-37, 2:31-32 (emphasis added). Schousek states that the
`
`minimum weight threshold is “compared to the measured total weight parameter”
`
`
`1 Per the BRI standard, and for the purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioner
`
`proceeds under the assumption that the term “relative weight parameter” is
`
`definite, but reserves the right to argue in other proceedings that this term is
`
`indefinite.
`
`7236681 v1
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`(the relative weight parameter, as discussed at [1.1], supra) “to determine whether
`
`the vehicle seat is holding an occupied infant seat . . . or has no occupant.” Id. at
`
`2:34-38 (emphasis added); Ex. Nissan-1003 (Carr Declaration) at ¶ 18.
`
`Accordingly, establishing a minimum weight threshold that is compared to
`
`the measured total weight parameter from the sensors to determine whether the
`
`seat is occupied, as taught by Schousek, discloses “establishing a first threshold of
`
`the relative weight parameter” as recited in the claim.
`
`[1.3]: “allowing deployment when the relative weight parameter is above the
`
`first threshold”
`
`As previously discussed, Schousek teaches a relative weight parameter (the
`
`total weight parameter) and a first threshold (the minimum infant seat weight
`
`threshold). See Ground 1 at [1.1]-[1.2], supra. Schousek describes at least two
`
`cases in which deployment of the air bag is allowed when the total weight
`
`parameter is above the minimum infant weight threshold. Ex. Nissan-1003 (Carr
`
`Declaration) at ¶ 19.
`
`First, Schousek describes that “[i]f the total weight parameter is greater than
`
`the maximum infant seat weight . . . this indicates that a larger occupant is present
`
`and a decision is made to allow deployment[.]” Ex. Nissan-1004 (Schousek) at
`
`5:32-35 (emphasis added). FIG. 5A from Schousek shows this process:
`
`7236681 v1
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`
`The “maximum infant seat weight” represents the “maximum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat (50 pounds),” and is greater than the minimum infant seat
`
`weight threshold (defined by Schousek as “about 10 pounds”). Id. at 2:31-34; Ex.
`
`1003 (Carr Declaration) at ¶ 20. Accordingly, allowing deployment of the air bag
`
`when the total weight parameter is greater than the maximum infant seat weight
`
`threshold, and thus greater than the minimum infant seat weight threshold, as
`
`taught by Schousek, discloses “allowing deployment when the relative weight
`
`parameter is above the first threshold” as recited in the claim. Id.
`
`Second, Schousek teaches “[i]f the total weight parameter is between” the
`
`two weight thresholds described above, “the occupant is identified as an occupied
`
`infant seat or a small child[.]” Ex. Nissan-1004 (Schousek) at 5:42-44; Ex. Nissan-
`
`1003 (Carr Declaration) at ¶ 21. Schousek describes 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[.]” Ex. Nissan-
`
`1004 (Schousek) at 5:47-50 (emphasis added); Ex. Nissan-1003 (Carr Declaration)
`
`at ¶ 21. This process is shown in FIG. 5A:
`
`7236681 v1
`
`19
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Schousek thus describes 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 selectively allowed according to the weight distribution
`
`detected by the sensors. Ex. Nissan-1003 (Schousek) at ¶ 22. Accordingly,
`
`Schousek discloses “allowing deployment when the relative weight parameter is
`
`above the first threshold” as recited in the claim.
`
`[1.4]: “establishing a lock threshold above the first threshold”
`
`As described above, Schousek describes a “max infant seat threshold” which
`
`is greater than the “min infant seat threshold.” See Ground 1 at [1.3], supra; Ex.
`
`Nissan-1004 (Carr Declaration) at 5:32-39. Schousek states that the “maximum
`
`7236681 v1
`
`20
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`weight of an occupied infant seat (50 pounds),” and is greater than the minimum
`
`infant seat weight threshold (defined by Schousek as “about 10 pounds”). Ex.
`
`Nissan-1004 (Schousek) at 2:31-34; Ex. Nissan-1003 (Carr Declaration) at ¶ 23.
`
`This maximum infant seat weight is a lock threshold because the air bag
`
`enablement decision locking procedure described below at [1.5] is performed when
`
`the detected weight exceeds the maximum infant seat weight. See Ex. Nissan-1004
`
`(Schousek) at 5:55-58; Ex. Nissan-1003 (Carr Declaration) at ¶ 23.
`
`Accordingly, by establishing a “max infant seat threshold” greater than the
`
`“min infant seat threshold,” Schousek teaches “establishing a lock threshold above
`
`the first threshold” as recited in the claim.
`
`[1.5]: “setting a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is above the lock
`
`threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given time”
`
`Schousek describes a process operable to “filter out . . . an occasional
`
`spurious [depl

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