UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 5,732,375
`Issue Date: March 24, 1998
`Title: METHOD OF INHIBITING OR ALLOWING AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT ANDREWS
`
`Case No. IPR2016- 00291
`_______________________________________________________________
`
`IPR2016-00291 - Corrected Ex. 1009
`Toyota Motor Corp., Petitioner
`1
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 5,732,375
`Issue Date: March 24, 1998
`Title: METHOD OF INHIBITING OR ALLOWING AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT ANDREWS
`
`Case No. IPR2016- 00291
`_______________________________________________________________
`
`IPR2016-00291 - Corrected Ex. 1009
`Toyota Motor Corp., Petitioner
`1
`
`
`
`I, Scott Andrews, do hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`I am currently a consultant for Cogenia Partners, LLC, focusing on
`
`systems engineering, business development and technical strategy supporting
`
`automotive and information technology. I have been in this position since 2001. In
`
`one of my active engagements, I serve as the technical lead on a project funded by
`
`the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop
`
`requirements for connected vehicle safety systems in preparation for NHTSA
`
`regulations governing such systems. I also serve as a technical consultant on
`
`multiple projects sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
`
`related to connected vehicle technology research.
`
`2.
`
`I have over 30 years of professional experience in the field of
`
`automotive technologies and systems, including vehicle information systems and
`
`vehicle safety and control systems. Further, I have authored numerous published
`
`technical papers and am a named inventor on 11 U.S. and foreign patents.
`
`3.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`from University of California, Irvine in 1977 and a Master of Science degree in
`
`Electronic Engineering from Stanford University in 1982.
`
`4.
`
`From 1977 to 1979, I worked at Ford Aerospace where I designed,
`
`tested and delivered microwave radar receiver systems.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`5.
`
`From 1979 to 1983, I worked at Teledyne Microwave, where I
`
`developed high reliability microwave components and developed CAD tools.
`
`6.
`
`From 1983 to 1996, I worked at TRW, Inc., having held various
`
`positions. From 1983 to 1985, I was a Member of the technical staff and a
`
`Department Manager in the Space Electronics sector. Between 1985 and 1990 I
`
`was a project manager working on various communications systems projects
`
`including the US DoD Advanced Research Projects Administration (ARPA)
`
`MIMIC Program. Between 1990 and 1993 I was the Manager of MMIC
`
`(monolithic-microwave-integrated-circuit) Products Organization. In this role, I
`
`developed business strategy and managed customer and R&D programs. During
`
`this time, I also developed the first single chip 94 GHz Radar, used for automotive
`
`cruise control and anti-collision systems. In 1993 I transferred to the TRW
`
`Automotive Electronics Group, and managed about 30 engineers in the Systems
`
`Engineering and Advanced Product Development organization. In this role, I
`
`managed advanced development programs such as automotive radar, adaptive
`
`cruise control, occupant sensing, automatic crash notification systems, in-vehicle
`
`information systems, and other emerging transportation products.
`
`7.
`
`I was employed as a Project General Manager in the Electronics
`
`Division of Toyota Motor Corporation. I worked at Toyota headquarters in Toyota
`
`City, Japan from April 1996 to around April 2000. Between July 1999 and April
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`2000, I transitioned from working in Japan to working in a Toyota office in San
`
`Jose, CA. In this position, I was responsible for leading the development of vehicle
`
`telematics systems, infotainment systems, including on-board and off-board
`
`navigation systems, traffic information systems, vehicle communications systems,
`
`safety applications, and automated vehicle control systems.
`
`8.
`
`In 1998,
`
`I
`
`founded
`
`the Automotive Multimedia
`
`Interface
`
`Collaboration, a consortium of car makers developing standards for in-vehicle
`
`computing and interfaces between consumer multimedia systems and consumer
`
`electronics devices. This work resulted in a variety of standards for vehicle
`
`interfaces, user interfaces and vehicle software management that were eventually
`
`transferred to other standards organizations such as ISO and the OSGi Alliance.
`
`9.
`
`In the various positions mentioned above, I was responsible for
`
`research and development projects relating to numerous vehicle information
`
`systems, user interface systems, sensory systems, control systems and safety
`
`systems, and also had the opportunity to collaborate with numerous researchers
`
`and suppliers to the auto industry. I therefore believe that I have a detailed
`
`understanding of the state of the art during the relevant period, as well as a sound
`
`basis for opining how persons of skill in the art at that time would understand the
`
`technical issues in this case. In 2000, I founded Cogenia, Inc. to develop enterprise
`
`class data management software systems. I served as the company’s Chief
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Executive Officer until 2001, when I created Cogenia Partners, my current
`
`consulting firm.
`
`10. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached hereto, and it includes a
`
`listing of my prior experience in litigation matters as an expert.
`
`II. ASSIGNMENT AND MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`11.
`
`I submit this declaration in support of Toyota Motor Corporation’s
`
`petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 (“the ’375 patent”).
`
`12.
`
`I am not an employee of Toyota or of any affiliate or subsidiary
`
`thereof.
`
`13. My consulting firm, Cogenia Partners, LLC, is being compensated for
`
`my time at a rate of $500 per hour.
`
`14. My compensation is in no way dependent upon the substance of the
`
`opinions I offer below, or upon the outcome of Toyota’s petition for inter partes
`
`review (or the outcome of the inter partes review, if trial is instituted).
`
`15.
`
`I have been asked to provide certain opinions relating to the
`
`patentability of the ’375 patent. Specifically, I have been asked to provide my
`
`opinion regarding (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art to which the ’375 patent
`
`pertains and (ii) whether claim 11 would have been obvious in view of the prior
`
`art.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`16. The opinions expressed in this declaration are not exhaustive of my
`
`opinions on the patentability of claim 11 of the ’375 patent. Therefore, the fact that
`
`I do not address a particular point should not be understood to indicate any opinion
`
`on my part that any claim otherwise complies with the patentability requirements.
`
`17.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed the ’375 patent and its
`
`prosecution history, as well as prior art to the ’375 patent including:
`
`a) U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327 to Schousek (“Schousek”);
`
`b) Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication JP 06-022939 to
`
`Tokuyama et al. (“Tokuyama”); and
`
`c) U.S. Patent No. 5,454,591 to Mazur et al. (“Mazur”).
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’375 PATENT
`
`18. The ’375 patent “relates to occupant restraints for vehicles.” (Ex.
`
`1001, ’375 patent at 1:7.) In particular, the patent describes “a method [of] using
`
`seat sensors to determine seat occupancy for control of airbag deployment.” (Id. at
`
`1:7-8.) According to the ’375 patent, and as was well known in the art,
`
`“supplemental inflatable restraints (SIRs) or airbags for occupant protection in
`
`vehicles increasingly involve[] equipment for the front outboard passenger seat.”
`
`(Id. at 1:1-14.) As was also well known, “[t]he passenger seat … may be occupied
`
`by a large or a small occupant including a baby in an infant seat.” (Id. at 1:18-20.)
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`19.
`
`It was further known in the field of vehicle safety that airbags are
`
`appropriate and useful for protecting front-facing passengers from injury during a
`
`collision, but that when a rear-facing child safety seat is installed on the front
`
`passenger seat, the child occupant’s head can be dangerously close to the airbag,
`
`and airbag deployment can cause severe injury or death. Thus, the ’375 patent
`
`acknowledges that “it is desirable to prevent deployment of the airbag” in these
`
`circumstances, i.e., when an “infant seat … in a rear facing position” is present in
`
`the passenger seat. (Id. at 1:22-29.)
`
`20. The ’375 patent next refers to Schousek, which discloses (in the words
`
`of the ’375 patent) a “sensor arrangement and algorithm” that “successfully
`
`cover[s] most cases of seat occupancy.” (Id. at 1:37-39.) This includes “pressure
`
`sensors in the passenger seat … to evaluate the weight distribution and determine
`
`the type of occupant and the facing direction of an infant seat.” (Id. at 1:34-37.)
`
`Still, according to the ’375 patent, Schousek does not “encompass every case of
`
`seat occupancy.” (Id. at 1:39-40.) The inventor of ’375 patent aims to improve
`
`upon Schousek by “detect[ing] a comprehensive range of vehicle seat occupants
`
`including infant seats for a determination of whether an airbag deployment should
`
`be permitted.” (Id. at 1:44-47.)
`
`21. The ’375 patent describes “[a] dozen [pressure] sensors, judicially
`
`located in the seat.” (Id. at 1:59-61.) The pressure sensors are monitored by a
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`microprocessor, which computes “a total weight parameter by summing the
`
`pressures” as well as “the pattern of pressure distribution.” (Id. at 1:67-2:3.) This
`
`pattern is determined in part by “assigning a load rating to each sensor.” (Id. at
`
`2:13-16.) According to the ’375 patent, a measurement of the total force applied to
`
`the seat is insufficient for properly detecting small children and infant seats, and
`
`the “load rating” is meant to improve that detection. (See id. at 2:5-7.)
`
`22. The figures of ’375 patent illustrate the algorithm used to determine
`
`whether airbag deployment should be allowed. Figure 3, which is described as “a
`
`flow chart representing an overview of an algorithm for determining deployment
`
`permission according to the invention,” (id. at 2:33-35), is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`23.
`
`In Figure 3, the sensor values from the 12 seat sensors are input in
`
`step 36. Then, after some pre-processing to account for sensor bias and to remove
`
`high-frequency variations in the sensor readings, the “decision algorithms” are run
`
`in step 42. (Id. at Fig. 3; see also accompanying description at 3:33-4:62.)
`
`24. Figure 8, described as “a flow chart for deployment decision,
`
`according to the invention,” (id. at 2:44-45), provides additional information about
`
`“the decision algorithm 42.” (Id. at 4:64-66; see also Fig. 8.)
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`25. As can be seen, the algorithm includes numerous steps not explicitly
`
`recited in the claims. The following description is limited to those steps most
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`pertinent to my analysis. At step 68, “total force is compared to high and low
`
`thresholds.” (Id. at 5:12-15.) If the total force detected by the sensors is “above
`
`the high threshold,” then “deployment is allowed.” (Id.) If the total force is
`
`“below the low threshold,” then “deployment is inhibited.” (Id.)
`
`26.
`
`If the total force is neither above the high threshold nor below the low
`
`threshold (i.e., between the two thresholds), then “[t]he total load rating” is also
`
`“compare[d] … to high and low thresholds” at step 72. (Id. at 5:17-21 (emphasis
`
`added).) “Deployment is allowed if the rating is above the high threshold and
`
`inhibited if below the low threshold.” (Id.) If the load rating is between the two
`
`thresholds, further processing ensues.
`
`27. According to the applicant of the ’375 patent, this use of a “load
`
`rating” is what distinguishes the ’375 patent from Schousek. Addressing Schousek
`
`during prosecution, the applicant explained that in the ’375 patent (and claim 11 in
`
`particular), “assigned load ratings are limited to a maximum value,” thereby
`
`“limit[ing] the contribution of any individual sensor to the total load rating so that
`
`the total load rating provides an indication as to whether the sensed forces are
`
`distributed over the passenger seat.” (Ex. 1005, at p. 44.)
`
`IV. CLAIMS OF THE ’375 PATENT
`
`28. The ’375 patent includes 19 claims, of which claims 1, 11, and 17 are
`
`independent claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`29.
`
`I understand that only claim 11 is at issue in Toyota’s petition for
`
`inter partes review. It is reproduced below for reference:
`
`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
`allowed if the sensed forces are distributed over the
`passenger seat, even if the total force is less than the total
`threshold force.
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`30.
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I have read the
`
`claims from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. I understand
`
`that in this inter partes review, the usual “broadest reasonable construction”
`
`standard is inapplicable because the ’007 patent is expired, and that claims are
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`instead construed in the same manner as in district court- However, the different
`
`claim construction standard would not change my opinions herein.
`
`31.
`
`I have been asked to apply the following claim constructions:
`
`“sensor array” / “array of
`
`“ordered grouping of [force] sensors”
`
`force sensors”
`
`“total threshold force”
`
`“a minimum force that allows airbag deployment
`
`based on the total force sensed by the entire sensor
`
`array”
`
`
`
`“force”
`
`“pressure that is indicative of weight”
`
`32. Additionally, I have been asked to provide my opinion on the meaning
`
`of the term “load rating” in claim 11. The claim language requires a “load rating”
`
`to be “assign[ed]
`
`to each sensor based on its measured force, said load ratings
`
`being limited to maximum value.’’ (Ex. 1001, ’375 patent at 7: 1 1-13.) No explicit
`
`definition is provided in the ’375 patent for “load rating,” but it is described
`
`broadly as “a measure of whether the sensor is detecting some load.” (Id. at 4:2—4.)
`
`The example given in the specification states that the load rating is a value between
`
`zero and four based on the measured load.
`
`(Id. at 4:6—9.) The relationship is
`
`illustrated in Figure 6:
`
`
`
`
`33. According to the applicant, the purpose of the “load rating” in the
`
`’375 patent is to limit the contribution of a single sensor when determining the
`
`distribution of weight across the seat. (See Ex. 1005, at 44.) For example, if an
`
`occupant of given weight is distributed evenly across the seat, then each of the
`
`twelve sensors might have a load rating of 3, for a total of 36. If the same weight
`
`is concentrated across three sensors, those three might have the maximum load
`
`rating of 4, even though the individual sensors are measuring several times the
`
`weight of the previous example. Because the other sensors would have a load
`
`rating of 0, the total load rating would be only 12, even though the actual weight is
`
`the same.
`
`34.
`
`In my opinion, the proper construction of “load rating” is simply: a
`
`numerical value that indicates whether each sensor in the claimed “sensor array” is
`
`detecting some load. Claim 11 is not limited to the example given in the
`
`specification, and there is no requirement that the load rating be the illustrated
`
`zero-to-four value or that the relationship follow the particulars of Figure 6.
`
`Instead, a load rating might be, for example, a binary value of zero or one,
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`provided it acts as “a measure of whether the sensor is detecting some load” as
`
`stated in the specification. Furthermore, such a binary value could limit the load
`
`ratings to a maximum value as required by claim 11, and thereby limit the
`
`contribution of a single sensor to a measurement of weight distribution in the same
`
`manner described in the prosecution history.
`
`VI. UNPATENTABILITY ANALYSIS
`
`35.
`
`In my opinion, claim 11 of the ’375 is unpatentable because it would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`A. Legal Standard for Obviousness
`
`36.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable and invalid if the
`
`subject matter of the claim as a whole would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of the claimed subject matter as of the time of the invention
`
`at issue. I understand that the following factors must be evaluated to determine
`
`whether the claimed subject matter is obvious: (1) the scope and content of the
`
`prior art; (2) the difference or differences, if any, between each claim of the patent
`
`and the prior art; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent
`
`was filed. Unlike anticipation, which allows consideration of only one item of
`
`prior art, I understand that obviousness may be shown by considering more than
`
`one item of prior art. Moreover, I have been informed and I understand that so-
`
`called objective
`
`indicia of non-obviousness, also known as “secondary
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`considerations,” like the following are also to be considered when assessing
`
`obviousness: (1) commercial success; (2) long-felt but unresolved needs; (3)
`
`copying of the invention by others in the field; (4) initial expressions of disbelief
`
`by experts in the field; (5) failure of others to solve the problem that the inventor
`
`solved; and (6) unexpected results. I also understand that evidence of objective
`
`indicia of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claimed
`
`subject matter.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`37.
`
`I understand that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`considered to have the normal skills and knowledge of a person in a certain
`
`technical field, as of the time of the invention at issue. I understand that factors
`
`that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include:
`
`(1) the education level of the inventor; (2) the types of problems encountered in the
`
`art; (3) the prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which
`
`innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the
`
`education level of active workers in the field. I also understand that “the person of
`
`ordinary skill” is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of the
`
`universe of available prior art.
`
`38.
`
`In my opinion, in December of 1995, a person with ordinary skill in
`
`the art with respect to the technology disclosed by the ’375 patent would have at
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`least a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering, electrical
`
`engineering, computer engineering, or a related field; experience in computer
`
`programming; and several years of experience in vehicle safety systems or the like.
`
`39. Based on my experience and education, I consider myself (both now
`
`and as of December 1995) to be a person of at least ordinary skill in the art with
`
`respect to the field of technology implicated by the ’375 patent.
`
`C. Obviousness of Claim 11 in View of Schousek and Tokuyama
`
`40.
`
`I understand that both Schousek and Tokuyama are prior art to the
`
`’375 patent. In my opinion, they render claim 11 obvious.
`
`1. Overview of Schousek
`
`41. Schousek, is generally directed to “[a]n air bag restraint system [that]
`
`is equipped with [a] seat occupant sensing apparatus for a passenger seat…” (Ex.
`
`1002, Schousek at Abstract.) Schousek’s system employs “two sets of four sensors
`
`symmetrically arranged on either side of a seat centerline … to gather pressure
`
`data” from the seat. (Id. at 2:17-19; see also Abstract; 4:36-48.) “The sensors are
`
`preferably located just beneath the seat cover…” (Id. at 4:49-50.) Figure 2
`
`provides an example of how the sensors can be distributed in a seat:
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`42. Schousek’s system also includes a processor programmed to sample
`
`the measurements from the sensors. (Id. at 2:24-25.) Using the sensor data, the
`
`microprocessor “determine[s] a total weight parameter” and “the center of weight
`
`distribution” on the passenger seat. (Id. at 2:25–30; see also Abstract.) This
`
`information is then used to classify the seat occupant, for example “whether the
`
`vehicle seat is holding an occupied infant seat, a larger person, or has no
`
`occupant.” (Id. at 2:31-37.) It is also used to “determine the position of an infant
`
`seat.” (Id. at 2:37-40.) Accordingly, the processor can determine whether to
`
`enable or disable airbag deployment. (See id. at 2:40-41.)
`
`43. Figure 5A partially illustrates the occupant classification and airbag
`
`enablement process followed by Schousek’s system:
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`“[T]he sensors are enabled and each sensor sampled” at step 64. (Id.
`
`44.
`
`at 5:27-28.) The sensor outputs are calibrated, and the computed forces from the
`
`sensors are “summed to obtain a total force or weight parameter” at step 68. (Id. at
`
`5:28-31.) Then, the “center of force or weight distribution” is determined at step
`
`70. (Id. at 5:31-32.) The total weight and center of weight are used to classify the
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`occupant and make an airbag deployment decision: “If 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” at steps 72 and
`
`74. (Id. at 5:32-35.) The maximum weight of an infant seat may be set at 50
`
`pounds. (Id. at 2:32-33.) “Otherwise, if the total weight parameter is less than the
`
`minimum weight threshold for an occupant infant seat … it is determined that the
`
`seat is empty and a decision is made to inhibit deployment” at steps 76 and 78. (Id.
`
`at 5:36-39.) The minimum weight of an infant seat may be set at 10 pounds. (Id.
`
`at 2:31-32.) Thus, Schousek’s system will enable airbag deployment if the total
`
`weight detected by array of sensors in the passenger seat is more than a high
`
`threshold of 50 pounds, and disable airbag deployment if the total weight is less
`
`than a low threshold of 10 pounds.
`
`45.
`
`If the total weight is between the low and high thresholds (10-50
`
`pounds), then “the occupant is identified as an occupied infant seat or small child,”
`
`(id. at 5:42-44), and further processing is undertaken to determine whether the
`
`occupant is a rear-facing infant seat. If the computed center of weight is towards
`
`the front of the seat, “a rear facing infant seat is detected and a decision to inhibit
`
`deployment is made” in steps 82 and 84. (Id. at 5:44-46.) If “the center of weight
`
`distribution is not forward of [a] reference line, a forward facing infant seat is
`
`detected and a decision is made to allow deployment of the air bag” in steps 82 and
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`86. (Id. at 5:47-50.) Thus, using the weight distribution pattern from the seat
`
`sensors, the invention disclosed by Schousek achieves its goal of inhibiting
`
`dangerous deployment of an airbag in the presence of a rear-facing child seat.
`
`2. Overview of Tokuyama
`
`46. Tokuyama is in the same field as the ’375 patent and Schousek,
`
`disclosing “a seat load detection apparatus, used in a seat of an automobile such as
`
`one’s own vehicle, for detecting the presence or absence of sitting by a passenger.”
`
`(Tokuyama, Ex. 1004 at ¶ 0001.) Tokuyama was filed by Alps Electric Co., Ltd., a
`
`preferred supplier of “pressure sensors”
`
`identified by
`
`the ’375 patent’s
`
`specification. (See Ex. 1001, ’375 patent at 3:19-21.) The detection apparatus
`
`disclosed by Tokuyama can distinguish human occupants from baggage or an
`
`empty seat. (Tokuyama, Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 0003, 0008, 0029.) It includes “multiple
`
`load detection units” (i.e., sensors) that are “distributed at least on the inner side of
`
`the surface sheet of the seat unit of the seat….” (Id. at ¶ 0004.) In the example,
`
`given by Tokuyama, twelve sensors are distributed in the seat, labeled “S1”
`
`through “S12” in Figure 1:
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`47. Tokuyama’s apparatus utilizes a “microprocessor 23” that makes a
`
`passenger seat occupancy determination based on both an “ON-OFF judgment as
`
`to whether a current is flowing in each load detection unit. . . and . . . the detected
`
`value of the current at each load detection unit S1 to S12….” (Id. at ¶ 0029.) A
`
`person is determined to be present if there are four or more “ON” sensors, and if
`
`the pressure exerted on the seat is distributed relatively evenly as opposed to being
`
`largely focused on one spot or at the seat edges. (See id. at ¶¶ 0031–-0035.)
`
`Figure 7 depicts the process followed by Tokuyama’s apparatus in flow chart form:
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`48. As shown in Figure 7, in step (a), it is determined whether there is any
`
`load exerted on the seat at all. (Id. at ¶ 0031.) If so, the process continues. In step
`
`(b), “it is determined whether four or more of the nine load detection units S1 to S9
`
`are ON. If fewer than three of the nine load detection units S1 to S9 are ON, it is
`
`decided that this is a load due to something other than a person.” (Id.) In steps (c)
`
`and (d), the process considers whether sensors “S2, S5, and S8” and “S4, S5, and
`
`S6” are all OFF. Looking at Figure 1, it can be seen that these five sensors form a
`
`cross in the middle of the seat, which is where one would expect the weight of a
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`human occupant to be concentrated. Tokuyama therefore proposes that if “a
`
`person has sat down on the seat unit 2, then” these groups of sensors “will never be
`
`all OFF.” (Id.) By contrast, a suitcase (for example) would likely trigger the outer
`
`sensors in a typical passenger seat. These determinations in steps (b)-(d) are all
`
`binary; they consider whether the seat sensors are detecting some load, rather than
`
`the amount of pressure detected at each sensor location.
`
`49. The remaining steps consider the magnitude and distribution of load
`
`exerted on the seat. In particular, in step (e), Tokuyama considers whether “the
`
`total current flowing in all the load detection units S1 to S9 is [less] than or equal
`
`to a prescribed value (for example, 2 mA), it is decided that the load acting on the
`
`seat unit 2 is something other than a person.” (Id.) (emphasis added).1 Here, the
`
`measured current corresponds to load pressure—the current increases as pressure
`
`on the seat increases. (See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 0016–0017.) Tokuyama explains that as
`
`pressure on an individual sensor increases, the area of contact between two
`
`conductors increases, reducing the resistance between them and allowing more
`
`1
`To explain the alteration, the original text says the opposite: “greater” rather
`
`than “less.” However, this follows a sentence stating “less than or equal to a
`
`prescribed value,” and Figure 7 states that if the sum is “less than or equal to the
`
`prescribed current.” (Ex. 1004, Tokuyama at ¶ 0031, Fig. 7.) Therefore, in my
`
`opinion, Tokuyama’s use of “greater” in this sentence is an error.
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`current to flow through the sensor. (See id.) Step (e) therefore measures the
`
`magnitude of the total load measured across nine of the twelve seat sensors and
`
`compares it to a threshold.
`
`50.
`
`In the following steps (f) and (g), Tokuyama performs additional
`
`processing to classify the seat occupant. (See id. at ¶ 0031.) “If the value of the
`
`current detected in any load detection unit is greater than or equal to 40% of the
`
`sum total of the current values detected, it is determined that this is a load due to
`
`something other than a person.” (Id.) Likewise, “if the sum of the currents
`
`detected due to S4 and [S6] is greater than or equal to 50%, it is decided that it is a
`
`load due to something other than a person.” (Id. at ¶¶ 0031–0032.)2 In other
`
`words, the system determines that the seat occupant is not a person if either (i) the
`
`weight is concentrated on one sensor, or (ii) the weight is concentrated on the two
`
`side sensors.
`
`
`2
`To explain the alteration, Figure 7 and some of Tokuyama’s text describe the
`
`sensors used in step (g) as S4 and S6, but in the quoted passage Tokuyama states
`
`S4 and S9. In my opinion, the correct sensors are S4 and S6, since they are located
`
`symmetrically at opposite sides of the seat.
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Schousek and Tokuyama Together Disclose All the
`Limitations of and Render Claim 11 Obvious
`In my opinion, the combination of Schousek and Tokuyama teaches
`
`51.
`
`all the limitations of claim 11 of the ’375 patent and renders claim 11 obvious.
`
`52. Claim 11 is directed to “[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.” In my opinion, Schousek discloses the same kind of method recited
`
`by claim 11. In particular, Schousek discloses an “[a]n air bag restraint system”
`
`including a “seat occupant sensing apparatus” that incorporates an array of
`
`pressure sensors. (Ex. 1002, Schousek at Abstract, 2:17-19, Fig. 2.) “The sensing
`
`apparatus comprises eight variable resistance pressure sensor[s] in the seat cushion.
`
`The response of each sensor to occupant pressure is monitored by a microprocessor
`
`which calculated [sic] total weight and weight distribution.” (Id. at Abstract; see
`
`also 2:25-30; 5:28-32; Figs. 5A, 6.) As shown by Figure 2, the sensors are
`
`arranged in an ordered, symmetrical pattern. (See id. at Fig. 2; see also 3:64-4:11.)
`
`Sensor data is used to calculate the “total weight” of the occupant as well as the
`
`“center of weight distribution,” and this information allows the system to classify
`
`the occupant and enable or inhibit airbag deployment in view of that classification.
`
`(Id. at 2:25-30, 40-41.)
`
`
`
`
`
`26
`
`
`
`53.
`
`In my opinion, Tokuyama is also directed to the type of method in
`
`claim 11. It discloses “a seat load detection apparatus that can easily distinguish
`
`sitting by a driver or passenger … and placement of baggage or another object on
`
`the seat unit of a seat.” (Ex. 1004, Tokuyama at ¶ 0003.) The apparatus includes
`
`“multiple load detection units disposed … on the inner side of the surface sheet of
`
`the seat unit.” (Id. at ¶ 0004.) It includes a “microprocessor” that considers both
`
`an “ON-OFF judgment of whether current is flowing through each load detection
`
`unit” and “the detected value of the current at each load detection unit.” (Id. at
`
`¶ 0029; see also ¶¶ 0031-0035; Fig. 7.) As explained infra (¶ 49), the current
`
`through Tokuyama’s sensors measures the pressure applied to the seat.
`
`54. Claim 11 next requires “measuring the force sensed by each sensor.”
`
`In my opinion, this is disclosed by Schousek, whose system includes a
`
`“microprocessor” that is “is programmed to sample each sensor.” (Ex. 1002,
`
`Schousek at 2:24-25; see also Abstract (“The response of each sensor to occupant
`
`pressure is monitored by a microprocessor”); 5:27-32 (“each sensor [is] sampled”
`
`and “[t]he sampled voltage is subtracted from the sensor calibration voltage to
`
`determine a force for each sensor”); Fig. 5A, steps 64, 66.)
`
`55.
`
`In my opinion, Tokuyama also discloses this limitation. Tokuyama
`
`discloses “multiple … load detection units” made from “two flexible sheets 10 and
`
`11” and “strip-shaped conductors 12” and “13” which are “formed arranged in a
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`
`
`matrix shape” in the vehicle seat. (Ex. 1004, Tokuyama at ¶ 0012; see also Fig. 2.)
`
`The sensors respond to pressure by conducting electrical current: “[W]hen no
`
`pressing pressure is applied, then … no electric current will flow between
`
`conductors 12 and 13, and when pressing pressure is applied, the amount of current
`
`that flows between the conductors 12 and 13 will vary according to the magnitude
`
`of the pressing pressure.” (Id. at ¶ 0017.) The “detected value of the current at
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
