`
`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