`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2016-00291
`Patent 5,732,375
`_______________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`5. Overview of Mazur. .................................................................................. 10
`
`5. Overview of Mazur. ................................................................................ .. 10
`
`6. Argument. ................................................................................................. 13
`6. Argument. ............................................................................................... .. 13
`
`A. Petitioner Has Failed to Demonstrate that Claim 11 is Obvious in View
`
`A. Petitioner Has Failed to Demonstrate that Claim 11 is Obvious in View
`of Schousek and Tokuyama. ...................................................................... 13
`of Schousek and Tokuyama..................................................................... .. 13
`
`B. Petitioner Has Failed to Demonstrate that Claim 11 is Obvious in View
`
`B. Petitioner Has Failed to Demonstrate that Claim 11 is Obvious in View
`of Tokuyama and Mazur. .......................................................................... 16
`of Tokuyama and Mazur. ........................................................................ .. 16
`
`7. Conclusion. ............................................................................................... 17
`
`7. Conclusion. ............................................................................................. .. 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`1. Introduction. ................................................................................................ 1
`
`1. Introduction. .............................................................................................. .. 1
`
`2. Overview of the ‘375 Patent. ...................................................................... 1
`
`2. Overview of the ‘375 Patent. .................................................................... ..1
`
`3. Overview of Schousek. ............................................................................... 6
`
`3. Overview of Schousek. ............................................................................. ..6
`
`4. Overview of Tokuyama. ............................................................................. 8
`4. Overview of Tokuyama. ........................................................................... ..8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`CASES
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................. 15
`
`In re Wilson,
`424 F.2d 1382 (CCPA 1970) ..................................................................... 16
`
`
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ........................................................................................ 13
`
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`1. Introduction.
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claim 11 of U.S. Patent
`
`5,732,375 (the “’375 Patent”). For at least the reasons explained below, the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) should not institute an
`
`inter partes review because Petitioner has not met its burden to show a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the challenged claim is unpatentable.
`
`
`
`2. Overview of the ‘375 Patent.
`The ‘375 Patent discloses a method of controlling airbag deployment
`
`using an array of pressure sensors on a vehicle passenger seat. Ex. 1001 at
`
`Abstract.1 The passenger seat of a vehicle may be occupied or unoccupied,
`
`and, if occupied, may be occupied by a child in an infant seat. Id. at 1:18-20,
`
`44-47. In the latter case, if the seat is occupied by a rear-facing infant seat it
`
`is desirable to prevent airbag deployment. Id. at 1:28-29. It is also desirable
`
`for the system to be sensitive to possible seating positions of small children.
`
`Id. at 1:49-50.
`
`1 The disclosure of the ‘375 Patent was also discussed by the Board in
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01003. Ex. 1006 at 3 et seq.
`
`1
`
`
`
`In a disclosed embodiment, the passenger seat is equipped with 12
`
`pressure sensors, arranged on the seat
`
`according to Figure 2, which is
`
`reproduced at left. Id. at 3:21-23. In this
`
`example, the sensors are turned on one at
`
`a time, a microprocessor samples each
`
`sensor four times, and the sensed values
`
`are averaged, bias-corrected, and filtered
`
`with a time constant. Id. at 3:41-43. This
`
`resulting value is then used to determine
`
`“decision measures,” id. at 3:48-49,
`
`using “fuzzy logic” to rate and handle
`
`marginal cases. Id. at 2:13, 19-20. The
`
`overall operation is shown in Figure 3 of
`
`the ‘375 patent, which is reproduced at
`
`right.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Figure 4 of the ‘375 Patent, which is reproduced here, shows the
`
`decision measure algorithm flow
`
`chart. Id. at 3:48-51. The sensor
`
`values are summed to obtain the
`
`total force. Id. at 3:49-51. Each
`
`sensor is given a “load rating,”
`
`which is a measure of whether a
`
`given sensor is detecting some
`
`load. Id. at 4:1-4. Load ratings are
`
`computed as shown in Figure 6.
`
`Loads below a base value (d) have
`
`a load rating of zero. Loads above the base value have a rating that is the
`
`difference between that of the
`
`base value and the measured
`
`load, up to a limit value. Id. at
`
`4:6-9. The total load rating, which is the sum of the individual load ratings,
`
`is then calculated. Id. at 4:9-11.
`
`Next, the localized areas, shown in Figure 7 (below), are checked for
`
`force concentration. Id. at 4:18-19. The sensors are divided into overlapping
`
`front, left, right and rear areas, and the algorithm determines whether all of
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`the pressure is concentrated in a particular group. Id. at 4:19-25. If so, a flag
`
`is set for that group. Id. at 4:27-29.
`
`The deployment decision
`
`algorithm is shown in Figure 8 of the
`
`‘375 Patent, which is reproduced below.
`
`Initially, a check is made to determine
`
`whether the rails of an infant seat are
`
`detected, and if so, whether the seat is facing forward or rearward. Id. at
`
`4:65-5:1. The decision
`
`algorithm then determines
`
`whether to allow or inhibit
`
`airbag deployment accordingly.
`
`Id. at 5:1-11.
`
`If no infant seat rails are
`
`detected, the decision algorithm
`
`compares the total force to high
`
`(allow) and low (inhibit)
`
`thresholds. Deployment is
`
`allowed if the force is above the
`
`high threshold, and inhibited if it is below the low threshold. Id. at 5:12-15.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`If the total force is below its low threshold, the total load rating is
`
`compared to high and low thresholds. “Deployment is allowed if the rating is
`
`above the high threshold and inhibited if below the low threshold.” Id. at
`
`5:18-21. Thus, airbag deployment is allowed if the total load rating for the
`
`sensors is above a load rating threshold, even if the total force sensed by the
`
`sensors is less than a threshold force.
`
`Claim 11, the sole claim challenged in the present petition, is
`
`reproduced below. Id. at 7:1-20.
`
`11. A method of airbag control in a vehicle having an
`array of force sensors on the passenger seat coupled to a
`controller for determining whether to allow airbag
`deployment based on sensed force and force distribution
`comprising the steps of:
`measuring the force sensed by each sensor;
`calculating the total force of the sensor array;
`allowing deployment if the total force is above a total
`threshold force;
`assigning a load rating to each sensor based on its
`measured force, said load ratings being limited to
`maximum value;
`summing the assigned load ratings for all the sensors
`to derive a total load rating; and
`allowing deployment if the total load rating is above a
`predefined total load threshold, whereby deployment is
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`allowed if the sensed forces are distributed over the
`passenger seat, even if the total force is less than the total
`threshold force.
`
`
`
`3. Overview of Schousek.
`Schousek, US Pat. 5,474,327, was cited and specifically considered by
`
`the Examiner during the original prosecution of the application that led to
`
`the ’375 Patent. Ex. 1005 at 23
`
`et seq. It was also cited and
`
`discussed during Reexamination
`
`No. 90/013,386 involving the
`
`‘375 Patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1010
`
`at 17 et seq.
`
`In Schousek, air bag
`
`deployment is determined based
`
`on an evaluation of the weight
`
`of a seat occupant vis-à-vis
`
`certain thresholds. If the total
`
`weight of the seat occupant is
`
`less than a minimum weight of
`
`an occupied infant seat, the seat is determined to be empty and air bag
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`deployment is inhibited. If the total weight of the seat occupant is greater
`
`than a maximum weight of an occupied infant seat, air bag deployment is
`
`not inhibited. Finally, if the total weight of the seat occupant is determined
`
`to be between the minimum weight of an occupied infant seat and the
`
`maximum weight of an occupied infant seat, air bag deployment depends on
`
`factors such as the legal requirements of where the vehicle is operated and/or
`
`whether the center of weight distribution is forward or aft of a seat reference
`
`line. Id. at 2:12-46; 4:55 – 5:3;
`
`5:23-50; Ex. 2001 at 9:11 –
`
`11:16. This algorithm is
`
`illustrated in Fig. 5A of
`
`Schousek. See steps 68 – 86 of
`
`Fig. 5A (reproduced above).
`
`Schousek also describes a
`
`fault detection procedure for an
`
`air bag control system. As
`
`illustrated in Fig. 5B
`
`(reproduced below), faults are
`
`detected by comparing the
`
`inhibit/no inhibit decisions
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`reached in five consecutive loops of the process illustrated in Fig. 5A. Ex.
`
`1004 at 5:51 – 6:1. If the inhibit/no inhibit decision is consistent over five
`
`consecutive loops, it is deemed correct and that inhibit/no inhibit decision is
`
`forwarded to the air bag deployment module. Id. at 5:51-61. If, however, the
`
`five decisions are not the same, a previous inhibit/no inhibit decision is
`
`forwarded to the air bag deployment module and a fault registered. If a large
`
`number of consecutive faults are noted, then a fault condition is reported to
`
`the air bag deployment module. Id. at 5:61-67. If this problem persists, a
`
`fault indicator is illuminated. Id. at 6:2-6.
`
`
`
`4. Overview of Tokuyama.
`Tokuyama, JP06-022939, describes a “seat load detection apparatus”
`
`intended to distinguish between human and non-human seat occupants. Ex.
`
`1004 at Abst. Using a matrix of “load
`
`detection units” (S1 – S12) that are sampled in
`
`sequence, id. at [0028], electric current values
`
`that correspond to loads acting on the load
`
`detection units are detected. Id. Using the
`
`presence (an ON state) or absence (an OFF
`
`state) of such currents, as well as their respective values at each load
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`detection unit, a microprocessor determines whether a load that is acting on
`
`a seat is due to a person or to something else. Id. at [0029].
`
`Figure 7 of Tokuyama shows this “distinguishing operation” in more
`
`detail. Initially, in step (a), if all of the load
`
`detections units are OFF, it is decided that no
`
`load is present. Otherwise, if any of the load
`
`detection units is ON, then a series of
`
`elimination tests (steps b-g) are made to
`
`determine if the load should be considered to be
`
`due to something other than a person. Id. at
`
`[0031]. If all of the elimination tests are
`
`satisfied, the load is deemed to be due to a
`
`person sitting in the seat. Id. at [0032].
`
`Otherwise, the load will be considered to be due to something other than a
`
`person, unless one or more of the seat front sensors (S10, S11, S12) is ON
`
`(step (h)), in which case the load will be considered to be due to a child
`
`sitting in the seat. Id. at [0033].
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`5. Overview of Mazur.
`Mazur, US Pat. 5,454,591, describes a system intended to prevent
`
`deployment of an airbag when a rearward facing child seat is occupying a
`
`passenger seat in a vehicle. Ex.1011 at Abst. The system makes use of a
`
`weight sensor, and either or both of a distance sensor and a seat belt payout
`
`sensor. Id. at 5:3-13.
`
`
`
`
`
`For example, as shown in Figure 2 of Mazur, each of the three sensors
`
`may provide inputs to a controller, which implements an AND function.
`
`When a signal from a crash sensor is deemed to be indicative of a crash
`
`condition, the controller evaluates the sensor inputs to determine whether the
`
`airbag deployment should be permitted or inhibited. Id. at 4:59 – 5:13.
`
`In one circumstance, inputs from the distance sensor and the weight
`
`sensor are evaluated. As shown in Fig. 3, if the sensed weight is greater than
`
`a weight threshold (deemed to be the maximum weight of an occupied child
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`seat, id. at 3:44-53), airbag deployment is always permitted. On the other
`
`hand, if the sensed weight is
`
`below the weight threshold,
`
`the measured distance to an
`
`object occupying the seat is
`
`considered. If that distance
`
`is less than a distance
`
`threshold (considered to be
`
`the distance to a rearward
`
`facing child seat, id. at 4:1-
`
`22), airbag deployment is
`
`prevented, otherwise airbag
`
`deployment is permitted. Id.
`
`at 5:14-31.
`
`In a second circumstance, shown in Figure 4, if the sensed weight is
`
`greater than the weight threshold, airbag deployment is always permitted.
`
`On the other hand, if the sensed weight is below the weight threshold, the
`
`amount of seatbelt payout is considered. If the amount of seatbelt payout is
`
`greater than a payout threshold (considered to be the amount of seatbelt
`
`needed to secure a reward facing child seat, id. at 4:23-45), airbag
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`deployment is prevented, otherwise airbag deployment is permitted. Id. at
`
`5:32-58.
`
`A third circumstance involves use of inputs from all of the sensors and
`
`is illustrated in Figure 5. As shown, if the sensed weight is greater than the
`
`weight threshold, airbag
`
`deployment is always
`
`permitted. If, however, the
`
`sensed weight is below the
`
`weight threshold, the measured
`
`distance to an object
`
`occupying the seat is
`
`considered, and if greater than
`
`the distance threshold, airbag
`
`deployment is always
`
`permitted. If, however, the
`
`sensed weight is below the
`
`weight threshold and the the measured distance to an object occupying the
`
`seat is less than the distance threshold, then the amount of seatbelt payout is
`
`considered. If the amount of seatbelt payout is greater than the payout
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`threshold, airbag deployment is prevented, otherwise airbag deployment is
`
`permitted. Id. at 5:59 – 6:13.
`
`
`6. Argument.
`An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information
`
`presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.108(c). Here, Petitioner has not met this requirement in any of its
`
`proposed grounds of institution.
`
`
`
`A. Petitioner Has Failed to Demonstrate that Claim 11 is Obvious
`in View of Schousek and Tokuyama.
`
`In alleging obviousness of claim 11 in view of the combined teachings
`
`of Schousek and Tokuyama, Petitioner admits that Schousek fails to teach the
`
`use of load ratings but contends that Tokuyama discloses same. Pet. at 23-24,
`
`26. As discussed above, a load rating, according to the ‘375 Patent is a
`
`measure of whether a given sensor is detecting some load. Ex. 1001 at 4:1-4.
`
`Petitioner therefore relies on Tokuyama’s use of load detections unit
`
`ON/OFF states to teach load ratings. Pet. at 28.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Assuming for sake of argument that Petitioner correctly characterizes
`
`the teachings of Tokuyama in this regard, it nevertheless remains the case
`
`that the combination of Schousek and Tokuyama does not suggest “summing
`
`the assigned load ratings for all the sensors to derive a total load rating; and
`
`allowing deployment if the total load rating is above a predefined total load
`
`threshold,” as required by claim 11. Schousek fails to teach the use of load
`
`ratings, Pet. at 23-24, and therefore cannot disclose summing assigned load
`
`ratings for all the sensors, and nor does Tokuyama does not suggest
`
`summing assigned load ratings for all the sensors to derive a total load
`
`rating; and allowing deployment if the total load rating is above a predefined
`
`total load threshold.
`
`According to Tokuyama, it is the ON/OFF state of individual sensors
`
`that determines whether a sensed load is due to a person or something else.
`
`Ex. 1004 at [0031]. For example, the state of sensors S1 – S9 may be
`
`determinative of the nature of the load. Id. Or, if not, then the state of
`
`sensors S2, S5, and S8, or S4, S5, and S6 may be determinative. Id. Or, the
`
`value of currents flowing in S1 – S9 may provide the indication. Id. In no
`
`event, however, is the sum of the assigned load ratings for all the sensors
`
`used to derive a total load rating, nor is it ever used to allow deployment (or
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`be determinative of any other decision) if the total load rating is above a
`
`predefined total load threshold, as required by claim 11.
`
`Petitioner reads Tokoyama as teaching “a passenger/no passenger
`
`classification based in part on whether ‘four or more of the nine load
`
`detection units S1 to S9 are on.’” Pet. at 29. While true, Petitioner fails to
`
`account for the fact that S1 – S9 are fewer that the total number of load
`
`sensors (S1 – S12), and so the portions of Tokoyama relied upon cannot
`
`meet claim 11’s condition of summing the assigned load ratings for all the
`
`sensors.
`
`Thus, even if a person of ordinary skill in the art considered the
`
`combined teachings of Schousek and Tokuyama as suggested by Petitioner,
`
`the result would not be the subject matter recited in claim 11. Instead, the
`
`resulting combination may have load ratings of discrete sensors or
`
`combinations of fewer than all sensors used to determine the nature of the
`
`load in a vehicle seat, as taught by Tokuyama, however, there would be no
`
`summing of assigned load ratings for all the sensors to derive a total load
`
`rating and allowing deployment if the total load rating is above a predefined
`
`total load threshold, as required by claim 11. Hence, Petitioner cannot show
`
`a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claim is unpatentable, CFMT,
`
`Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`(obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim), citing In re
`
`Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974); In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385
`
`(CCPA 1970) (all words in a claim must be considered in determining
`
`patentability) and no inter partes review should be instituted on the proposed
`
`ground.
`
`
`
`B. Petitioner Has Failed to Demonstrate that Claim 11 is Obvious
`in View of Tokuyama and Mazur.
`
`Petitioner’s allegations of obviousness in view of Tokuyama and
`
`Mazur are also deficient. As with the challenge in view of Schousek and
`
`Tokuyama, Petitioner again relies on Tokuyama for teaching the load
`
`detection units and the requirement of summing of assigned load ratings for
`
`all the sensors to derive a total load rating; and allowing deployment if the
`
`total load rating is above a predefined total load threshold. Pet. at 44. As
`
`demonstrated above, however, Tokuyama does not teach or suggest such a
`
`requirement. Instead, Tokuyama describes using the state of individual
`
`sensors or combinations of fewer than all of the sensors to make decisions
`
`about the nature of a load on a vehicle seat. Ex.1004 at [0031] – [0034].
`
`Mazur is not cited for any teachings regarding this requirement of
`
`claim 11, see, e.g., Pet. at 48-54, therefore, even if a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art considered the combined teachings of Tokuyama and Mazur as
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`suggested by Petitioner, the result would not be the subject matter recited in
`
`claim 11. Instead, the resulting combination may have load ratings of
`
`discrete sensors or combinations of fewer than all sensors used to determine
`
`the nature of the load in a vehicle seat, as taught by Tokuyama, however,
`
`there would be no summing of assigned load ratings for all the sensors to
`
`derive a total load rating and allowing deployment if the total load rating is
`
`above a predefined total load threshold, as required by claim 11. Hence,
`
`Petitioner cannot show a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claim is
`
`unpatentable, and no inter partes review should be instituted on the
`
`proposed ground.
`
`
`7. Conclusion.
`For at least the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has failed to show that
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any of
`
`the claims challenged in the petition; hence, no inter partes review should be
`
`instituted on any of the identified grounds. Further, as this is Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response, it is not a comprehensive rebuttal to all arguments
`
`raised by the Petition. If a trial is instituted, Patent Owner reserves the right
`
`to contest the Petition on all grounds permitted under the applicable rules.
`
`Moreover, nothing herein should be construed as a concession or admission
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`by Patent Owner as to any fact or argument proffered in the Petition.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`Reg. No. 41,402
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 14, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ascenda Law Group, PC
`333 W San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Email: tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`was served on March 14, 2016, by filing this document though the Patent
`Review Processing System as well as by delivering a copy via email directed
`to the attorneys of record for the Petitioner at the following address:
`John Flock
`George E. Badenoch
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`
`ptab@kenyon.com
`jflock@kenyon.com
`gbadenoch@kenyon.com
`
`
`
`The parties have agreed to electronic service in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`Dated: March 14, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reg. No. 41,402
`Ascenda Law Group, PC
`333 W San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Email: patents@ascendalaw.com