Inter Partes Review No. ________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`Paper No. __
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Kia Motors America, Inc.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Signal IP, Inc.
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 6,012,007
`Issued: January 4, 2000
`Filed: June 3, 1997
`Inventors: Duane Donald Fortune, Robert John Cashler
`Title: OCCUPANT DETECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AIR
`BAG SYSTEMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`Paper No. __
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Kia Motors America, Inc.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Signal IP, Inc.
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 6,012,007
`Issued: January 4, 2000
`Filed: June 3, 1997
`Inventors: Duane Donald Fortune, Robert John Cashler
`Title: OCCUPANT DETECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AIR
`BAG SYSTEMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Exhibits .................................................................................................................... iv
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. 42.8(a)(1) ............................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................ 2
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 2
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................. 5
`
`II. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 103 .............................................. 5
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ........................ 5
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under § 42.104(a) .............................................. 5
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Challenge Under § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested ............................. 6
`
`The Effective Priority Date of the ’007 Patent...................................... 7
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................. 9
`
`V. AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ʼ007 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ... 11
`
`A. GROUND 1 – Claim 1-3, 5, 9, 17, 20, and 21 are unpatentable over
`
`Schousek under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ......................................................... 11
`
`1. Overview of Schousek ............................................................................. 11
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit-1001
`
`Exhibit-1002
`
`Exhibit-1003
`
`Exhibit-1004
`
`Exhibit-1005
`
`Exhibit-1006
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 to Fortune et al. (“the ’007
`Patent”)
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’007 Patent
`(“the Prosecution History”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Kirsten M. Carr re the ’007 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327 (“Schousek”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,232,243 (“Blackburn”)
`
`Joint Claim Construction Brief , Signal IP v. Kia Motors
`America, Inc., Case LA CV14-02457 Document 73 (Joint
`Claim Construction Brief)
`
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kia Motors America, Inc. (“KMA” or “Petitioner”) petitions for Inter Partes
`
`Review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of claims 1-3, 5,
`
`9, and 17-21 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 (“the ʼ007
`
`Patent”) based on the substantively identical grounds as instituted for the pending
`
`IPR proceeding, IPR2015-01004. For the exact same reasons previously
`
`considered by the Board, on the exact same trial schedule, Petitioner respectfully
`
`seeks to join IPR2015-01004.
`
`
`
`In this Petition, Petitioner asserts substantively identical arguments that the
`
`Board has already instituted in IPR2015-01004. This Petition does not add to or
`
`alter any argument that has already been considered by the Board, and this Petition
`
`does not seek to expand the grounds of unpatentability that the Board has already
`
`instituted. Accordingly, and as explained below, there exists a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating unpatentability of at least
`
`one of the Challenged Claims based on teachings set forth in the references
`
`presented in this Petition.
`
`
`
`Because this Petition is filed within one month of the institution of IPR2015-
`
`01004, and because this Petition is accompanied by a Motion for Joinder, this
`
`Petition is timely and proper under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. 42.8(A)(1)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Petitioner, Kia Motors America, Inc., having an address of 111 Peters
`
`
`
`Canyon Road, Irvine, CA 92606, is the 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. Hyundai Motor America, Case No.
`
`8:15-cv-01085, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
`
`filed on July 8, 2015, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Toyota North America,
`
`Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-05162, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
`
`District of California, filed on July 8, 2015, currently pending; 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. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Case No. 2-14-cv-
`
`03114, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed on
`
`April 23, 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.,
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`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. Jaguar Land Rover North
`
`America, LLC, Case No. 2- 14-cv-03108, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
`
`District of California, filed on April 23, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v.
`
`Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, Case No. 2-14-cv-03107, 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. 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. Suzuki Motor of America, Inc., Case No. 8-14-cv-00607, in the
`
`U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed on April 17, 2014,
`3
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`
`
`
`
`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; Signal IP, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., Case
`
`No. 8-14-cv-00497, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
`
`filed on April 1, 2014, currently pending; Signal IP, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Motors
`
`North America, Inc., Case No. 2-14-cv-02462, in the U.S. District Court for the
`
`Central District of California, filed on April 1, 2014, currently pending; and 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.
`
`
`
`The ʼ007 Patent is subject to at least the following IPR proceedings:
`
`IPR2015-01004 (instituted), and IPR2015-01116 (denied institution).
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`KMA designates Heath J. Briggs, Reg. No. 54,919, as Lead Counsel and
`
`Patrick J. McCarthy, Reg. No. 62,762, as Backup Counsel. Mr. Briggs is available
`
`for service at Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 1200 17th Street, Suite 2400, Denver,
`
`Colorado 80202 (T: 303-572-6500). Mr. McCarthy is available for service at
`
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 2101 L Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20037 (T: 202-
`
`331-3100). Mr. Briggs and Mr. McCarthy are available for electronic service by
`
`email to KiaGTIPR@gtlaw.com.
`
`II.
`
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15
`
`KMA authorizes the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to charge Deposit
`
`Account No. 50-2775 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition and
`
`further authorizes for any additional fees to be charged to this Deposit Account.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)
`A. Grounds for Standing Under § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ʼ007 Patent is available for IPR. The present
`
`
`
`Petition is being filed within one month of institution of IPR2015-01004 along
`
`with a Motion for Joinder. Accordingly, Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting this review.
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Challenge Under § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested
`KMA 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 KMA-1003, the Declaration of Dr. Kirsten M. Carr (“Carr”),
`
`referenced throughout this Petition.
`
`’007 Patent Claims
`Ground
`Ground 1 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 application no. 08/868,338
`
`(KMA-1002), which was filed June 3, 1997. The ’007 Patent is a continuation-in-
`
`part of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 (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
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`earlier priority date. Therefore, the earliest possible priority date of the ’007 Patent
`
`is June 3, 1997 (hereinafter “the Critical Date”).
`
`Schousek (U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327, Exhibit KMA-1004) qualifies as prior
`
`art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b) and (e). Schousek issued on December
`
`12, 1995, more than one-year before the Critical Date, and is thus prior art at least
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Blackburn (U.S. Patent No. 5,232,243, Exhibit KMA-1005) qualifies as
`
`prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(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).
`
`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 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.
`
`1001 (’007 Patent), Face; see Ex. 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. 1001, Face. The ’007 Patent originally did not claim priority back
`
`to the ’375 Patent. See Ex. 1002, June 3, 1997 Original Application, at 1. The
`
`examiner rejected the independent claims as being “unpatentable over” the ’375
`7
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent. See id., April 9, 1999, at 2-5. 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, at 3-4. 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. at 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 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. at Applicant Arguments and Remarks Made in the June 9, 1999
`
`Amendment, Pg. 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).
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`In the Board’s related institution decision of October 1, 2015, in IPR2015-
`
`01004, (“the Decision”), the Board construed only one limitation: “relative weight
`
`parameter”. Specifically, the Board stated: “we determine that the ‘relative weight
`
`parameter,’ recited in claims 1 and 17, includes a parameter representing a total
`
`weight of an occupant.” Decision at 7.
`
`Solely for purposes of this Petition, Petitioner agrees with the Board’s claim
`
`construction of “relative weight parameter”. As noted by the Board, in related
`
`District Court litigation, the term was found indefinite, and Petitioner agrees that
`
`this term is indefinite. 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.
`
`The Decision further states “At this stage of the proceeding, we determine
`
`that no other particular term requires an express construction in order to conduct
`
`properly our analysis of the prior art.” Decision at 7. Solely, for the purposes of
`9
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`
`
`
`
`this Petition, Petitioner agrees with the Board that no other particular term requires
`
`an express construction in order to conduct properly an analysis of the prior art.
`
`As explained in the IPR2015-01004 Petition, 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,
`
`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.
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`V. AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ʼ007 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE
`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. 1004,
`
`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
`
`weight and weight distribution, and for inhibiting deployment in certain cases.” Ex.
`
`1001, 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.,
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 1004, 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.
`
`Claim 1
`
`The following claim chart identifies example disclosure in Schousek that
`
`teaches the elements of claim 1:
`
`Claim Language
`[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”
`[1.1]: “determining measures represented by
`individual sensor outputs and calculating from the
`sensor outputs a relative weight parameter”
`[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”
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`12
`
`Schousek
`See, e.g., 5:32-39, FIG. 5A;
`Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 15-16.
`
`See, e.g., Abstract, 4:51-60;
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 17.
`
`See, e.g., 2:31-38, 5:35-37;
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 18.
`See, e.g., Abstract, 2:31-34,
`5:35-50, FIG. 5A; Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 19-22, Ground 1, [1.1]-
`[1.2], supra
`See, e.g., 2:31-34, 3:32-39,
`5:32-39 & 55-58; Ex. 1003
`¶ 23, Ground 1, [1.3], supra
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Language
`[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”
`
`Schousek
`See, e.g., 5:53-63, 6:2-5; Ex.
`1003 ¶ 24, Ground 1, [1.1],
`[1.4], supra
`See, e.g., 5:36-39; Ex. 1003,
`¶ 25.
`See, e.g., 5:53-63; Ex. 1003
`¶ 26, Ground 1 [1.4], [1.6],
`supra
`See, e.g.,5:36-39, 53-63; Ex.
`1003 ¶ 27, Ground 1 [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, Petitioner 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.
`
`Petitioner 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. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.103(b)(3), 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
`13
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`
`
`
`
`“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.
`
`1001, 3:4-7; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 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. 1004,
`
`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 distinguish
`
`between forward and rear facing infant seats.” Id. (emphasis added). Ex. 1003, ¶
`
`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>.” Id. 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
`14
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`
`
`
`
`<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. 1003, ¶ 16:
`
`Ex. 1004, FIG. 5A (annotated)
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the air bag restraint system of Schousek including a
`
`microprocessor that (i) determines current weight and weight distribution values
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`from an array of seat sensors and (ii) determines whether to allow deployment of
`
`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 the claim.
`
`[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 sensors in the seat cushion.” Ex. 1004 (emphasis added). 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); Ex. 1003, ¶ 17. 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. 1004, 4:51-56; Ex. 1003,
`
`¶ 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. 1004, 4:58-60. Therefore, the weight parameter is a
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 1003, ¶ 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. 1004,
`
`5:35-37, 2:31-32 (emphasis added). Schousek states that the minimum weight
`
`threshold is “compared to the measured total weight parameter” (the relative
`
`weight parameter, as discussed at [1.1], supra) “to determine whether the vehicle
`
`
`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.
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`seat is holding an occupied infant seat . . . or has no occupant.” Id. at 2:34-38
`
`(emphasis added); Ex. 1003, ¶ 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, [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. 1003, ¶ 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. 1004, 5:32-35 (emphasis
`
`added). FIG. 5A from Schousek shows this process:
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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, ¶ 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.
`
`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. 1004, 5:42-44; Ex. 1003, ¶ 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. 1004, 5:47-50 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003, ¶ 21.
`
`This process is shown in FIG. 5A:
`
`19
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004, detail of FIG. 5A (annotated)
`
`
`
`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. 1003, ¶ 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”
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`As described above, Schousek describes a “max infant seat threshold” which
`
`is greater than the “min infant seat threshold.” See Ground 1, [1.3], supra; Ex.
`
`1004, 5:32-39. Schousek states that 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”). Ex. 1004, 2:31-34; Ex. 1003, ¶ 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. 1004, 5:55-58; Ex. 1003, ¶ 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 [deployment] decision, which may be due to occupant movement or other
`
`instability[.]” Ex. 1004, 6:2-5 (emphasis added). Schousek describes that the
`
`process includes a loop that stores a current air bag enablement decision “in an
`
`array <90> and if less than five decisions have been stored <92> a decision counter
`
`is incremented <94>” and the process returns to the start of the loop. Ex. 1004,
`
`NY 245492527v5
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`5:53-55; Ex. 1003, ¶ 24. Schousek continues: “[i]f the counter reaches a count of
`
`five, the counter is cleared <96> and the decisions are compared to determine if
`
`they are all the same <98>.” Ex. 1004, 5:55-58; Ex. 1003, ¶ 24. If all five values in
`
`the decision array “are the same, the current decision is transmitted to” a
`
`supplemental inflatable restraint (SIR) module controlling airbag deployment, and
`
`“the current decision is labelled as the previous decision[.]” Ex. 1004, 5:58-61; Ex.
`
`1003, ¶ 24. If all five decisions in the array “are not the same, the previous
`
`decision is retransmitted to the” SIR module. Ex. 1004, 5:61-63; Ex. 1003, ¶ 24.
`
`Accordingly, Schousek teaches setting the previous decision (a lock flag) if the
`
`same air bag
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
