IPR2016-00292, Paper No. 25
`IPR2016-00366, Paper No. 17
`March 7, 2017
`
`trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. And AISIN SEIKI CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - - -
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`Technology Center 3600
`Oral Hearing Held: Thursday, February 16, 2017
`
`Before: MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, JEREMY M.
`PLENZLER (via video link), and JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative
`Patent Judges.
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`February 16, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., in Hearing Room B, taken at the U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`IPR2016-00366, Paper No. 17
`March 7, 2017
`
`trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. And AISIN SEIKI CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - - -
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`Technology Center 3600
`Oral Hearing Held: Thursday, February 16, 2017
`
`Before: MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, JEREMY M.
`PLENZLER (via video link), and JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative
`Patent Judges.
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`February 16, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., in Hearing Room B, taken at the U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER AISIN SEIKI:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WILLIAM H. MANDIR, ESQ.
`DAVID P. EMERY, ESQ.
`Sughrue Mion PLLC
`2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20037-3213
`202-293-7060
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER TOYOTA:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MARK A. CHAPMAN, ESQ.
`GEORGE E. BADENOCH, ESQ.
`Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, New York 10004-1007
`212-908-6308
`
`KURACHI NOBOU
`Aisin Seiki Representative
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES: (Continued)
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TAREK N. FAHMI, ESQ.
`Ascenda Law Group
`333 West San Carlos Street
`Suite 200
`San Jose, California 95110-2730
`408-389-3537
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`(1:30 p.m.)
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Good afternoon. We are
`here in the matters of IPR2016- 00292 and IPR2016- 00366. I
`want to start by having a couple reminders, that since we have
`a remote judge joining us today, that you must stand behind
`the podium and speak into the microphone when you present.
`And.
`
`If you are going to show us slides, Judge Plenzler
`may not be able to see the slides, so you need to refer to the
`slides by number.
`So we will start with appearances. I understand we
`have two Petitioners today. If you would both stand and
`introduce yourself.
`MR. MANDIR: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`William Mandir on behalf of Petitioner Aisin Seiki. With me
`from our firm is Dave Emery.
`We also have a corporate representative from Aisin
`Seiki, Mr. Nobou.
`JUDGE PLENZLER: Sorry, I have to jump in real
`quick here. When you speak, could you please approach the
`podium? Otherwise I can't hear what you guys are saying.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`Thanks.
`
`MR. MANDIR: Sorry, Your Honor. William
`Mandir from Sughrue Mion in Washington, D.C. on behalf of
`the Petitioner, Aisin Seiki. With me today is Mr. Emery from
`our firm. And also we have a corporate representative, Nobou,
`from Aisin Seiki.
`MR. CHAPMAN: Good afternoon. I'm Mark
`Chapman, counsel for Toyota. With me is George Badenoch
`from our firm. And we also have some representatives from
`Toyota.
`
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right. And I understand
`Petitioners are going to split the time today. Are you splitting
`15 minutes each, roughly?
`MR. MANDIR: Probably not exactly a split like
`
`that-s.
`
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: You will be presenting first
`and then Mr. Chapman?
`MR. MANDIR: That's correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you. And from the
`Patent Owner?
`MR. FAHMI: Good afternoon, Your Honors. My
`name is Tarek Fahmi and I'm here representing the Patent
`
`
`
`5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`Owner, Signal.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you. So, Petitioners,
`you have 30 minutes total to discuss. Are you going to reserve
`any time for rebuttal?
`MR. MANDIR: Yes, Your Honor. We would like
`to reserve seven minutes, if we may.
`MR. PETRAVICK: All right. You may begin
`when you are ready.
`MR. MANDIR: Thank you, Your Honor. So we
`have in slide 2, there is one instituted ground in this
`proceeding and it is the same instituted ground for both Aisin
`and Toyota. It is claim 17 and 21 of the '007 patent based on
`anticipation of a U.S. patent to Schousek.
`Slide 3. We reproduce claim 17 and 21. We have
`highlighted in three boxes with green, red and blue colors the
`three disputed claim limitations by the Patent Owner. Patent
`Owner has not disputed any other terms in claim 17 and hasn't
`disputed anything independently for claim 21.
`I'm going to talk about the first limitation in the
`green box, "allow deployment when the relative weight
`parameter is above the first threshold," and Mr. Chapman will
`take the other two limitations which deal with setting and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`clearing the lock flag.
`Slide 4. On the left-hand side we have figure 1 of
`the '007 patent and on the right-hand side we have figure 1 of
`Schousek. And, as you can see, the structures of the two
`patents are identical.
`In fact, figure 1 of the '007 patent indicates that it
`is the same structure as Schousek. In fact, if you look in the
`background section of the '007 patent, the Schousek patent is
`incorporated by reference and the '007 patent indicates that the
`Schousek patent is a foundation to the '007 patent. So the
`structures are the same.
`The next slide, slide 5, is a summary slide which
`gives a summary of the various features of claim 17 and how
`they read on the Schousek patent. And we will discuss this
`correspondence in our presentation this afternoon. And we
`just have this slide as just a handy summary of our positions.
`Slide 6. As mentioned, there is three disputed
`limitations in this IPR. I'm going to talk about the first one,
`"allow deployment when the relative weight parameter is
`above the first threshold."
`Slide 7. Just at the outset I would like to point out
`that the Panel rejected Patent Owner's preliminary response
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`arguments in its Institution Decision. Since that time Patent
`Owner has filed a Patent Owner Response which set forth the
`same arguments that it had in the preliminary response.
`We didn't see any new arguments in the Patent
`Owner's Response. We didn't see any evidence or new
`evidence. So for the same reasons that the Panel found for the
`Institution Decision, we think they still apply here.
`Okay. Slide 8. This is the first disputed
`limitation, allow deployment when the weight is above the
`first threshold. The Schousek patent teaches a 10- pound
`minimum infant seat weight threshold that corresponds to the
`claimed first threshold in claim 17. Schousek allows
`deployment when the weight, the sensed weight of the
`occupant, is above this threshold level.
`And this is shown in figure 5A. I'm looking at
`slide 9. Figure 5A is on the left-hand side. We have a green
`box, rectangle, which indicates the flow of this flow chart
`which indicates that Schousek allows deployment when
`weight -- when the sensed weight is above the threshold.
`Schousek sets the decision to deploy in step 86,
`which is the bottom box within our green box, if the weight is
`above the minimum threshold, which is that 10- pound
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`threshold, in box 76, which is the box on the top of the green
`rectangle, and the center of weight distribution of the occupant
`is not forward of the reference line.
`And if we could just real quickly I wanted to go
`through these steps in figure 5A.
`JUDGE PLENZLER: Let me just -- let me jump in
`real quick here. I don't -- my understanding from reading the
`papers is that there is not much dispute as far as what
`Schousek actually discloses. Right? It is more of what is
`required by the claim. So maybe if we could initially just talk
`about what is required by that “allows” step.
`I'm wondering, it seems that your position is that it
`just has to at some point allow deployment. Right? It doesn't
`have to be just based on that determination, that initial, in
`Schousek, for example, the minimum infant seat threshold.
`You can have subsequent steps that are required to go through
`before you make your decision.
`I'm wondering if you can point to anything in that
`'007 patent that supports your understanding, if you have an
`example that is basically in line with your view?
`MR. MANDIR: I think, Your Honor, that what
`supports our position is the language of claim 17. The
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`language of claim 17 talks about allowing deployment when
`the relative weight parameter is above the threshold.
`And what we would say is that the claim doesn't
`say, for example, always allow deployment when the relative
`weight parameter is above the first threshold.
`JUDGE PLENZLER: Is that what the spec says,
`though, is that what the spec says at column 2, around lines 60
`to 61, talking about the system being so that you always allow
`deployment above a certain weight?
`MR. MANDIR: Well, the preferred embodiment
`shows that flow chart that, once you are above the weight in
`the '007, then you allow deployment. That's correct.
`But the claim -- and that's what Schousek does --
`but there is nothing in the language of the claim or something
`in the specification that we would say that this feature that is
`in Schousek, of this safety feature, additional safety feature,
`that says even if you are above the 10- pound threshold weight,
`then you can -- and it is determined to be a rearward- facing
`infant seat, in that case deployment, even though it's more
`than the 10- pound threshold, is not desirable and we're not
`going to do it.
`So as you go through the flow chart in figure 5A of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`Schousek we see, once it is above 10 pounds and it is
`confirmed that, in fact, this is an infant seat that is
`forward-facing, then we will allow deployment.
`So I would say that you are correct that the '007
`patent describes the embodiment where, yes, if it is more than
`the threshold, this first threshold that allows deployment,
`Schousek does that, too. It just has this additional feature and
`it does that without any change in exactly the way the patent
`anticipates.
`JUDGE PLENZLER: Isn't the '007 patent when it
`is talking about allowing deployment when you're above the
`first threshold, isn't that more like step 72 in the flow chart
`that you're looking at, where you're talking about a total
`weight greater than the maximum infant seat threshold?
`MR. MANDIR: Step 72?
`JUDGE PLENZLER: And I know you can't use
`that because then later on the claim requires a lock threshold
`and that has to be above the first threshold, so it seems like
`that is why you can't cite to that limitation.
`What I'm wondering, though, is that minimum
`infant seat threshold is, basically I think Schousek says it is
`indicative of an empty seat, right?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`MR. MANDIR: If it is below that, if it's below
`that it is. If it is above it, it is an indication of an infant seat
`or a small child.
`JUDGE PLENZLER: Right. So it's the line. It's
`the line between empty seat and a small child. And you cite
`the same thing for your unlock threshold.
`I'm just wondering what meaning this allow
`deployment, right, when the weight parameter is above the
`first threshold, really has if it just means allow deployment,
`right, if you are something more than an empty seat?
`Isn't every airbag system set up so that at some
`point if you have something in the seat that meets a certain
`threshold you are going to allow deployment? How does that
`really limit the claim?
`MR. MANDIR: How does that limit? You are
`talking about Schousek, how it limits claim 17?
`JUDGE PLENZLER: How your reading of that --
`how your interpretation of allow deployment limits this claim
`17 in any kind of meaningful way, if effectively you are
`reading it to just say that, you know, at some point you are
`allowing deployment when, you know, you have something --
`because if you are above the minimum threshold the seat is not
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`empty in Schousek, right? That's all you are determining.
`Okay, it is not empty. Go on to subsequent steps.
`What I'm asking is in every airbag system where
`you're determining whether or not something is in the seat,
`you know, at some point, if the weight is high enough you're
`going to do this step. So, I mean, what real meaning does this
`have to the claim?
`MR. MANDIR: So what I would say, Your Honor,
`this first threshold, at least for purposes of comparing it to
`Schousek, the first threshold, if it is above it, according to
`Schousek, then it indicates it is an infant seat or a small child.
`It says it specifically in step 80. That's the conclusion.
`If it is less than that threshold, then it is something
`lighter than an infant seat or it is an empty seat. So in
`Schousek when you go through it and this first threshold is
`determined, it has to reach above this 10- pound, it is a specific
`weight that the patent describes that corresponds to the
`minimum weight of an infant seat, so if it is more than 10
`pounds, then that's a question, okay, it is an infant seat.
`It is not the higher maximum weight that you
`mentioned in step 72. It is an infant seat. And we're going to
`allow deployment as long as it is a forward- facing seat. And
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`if it is determined to be a rearward- facing seat, then that's not
`a situation that we want deployment.
`So I think it certainly is a -- it's a requirement that
`has to be met in claim 17 and we would submit that Schousek
`meets that in step 76.
`JUDGE PLENZLER: What does the last step
`require, when it says allow deployment while the lock flag is
`set, does that require always allowing deployment when the
`lock flag is set?
`MR. MANDIR: The claim limitation is something
`for Mr. Chapman but I will answer your question. The lock
`flag, the claim limitation says that if it is in a lock flag for a
`given time, I believe is the exact language. So if it has been
`for a given time in the lock flag, then it allows deployment,
`that's correct.
`JUDGE PLENZLER: So you would be always
`allowing deployment while the lock flag is set, right? I'm just
`wondering, we have two instances that allow deployment in
`this claim here. Do they have different meanings, is what I'm
`wondering?
`MR. MANDIR: Well, yes, because it will allow --
`that's right, if it's the lock flag gets set, it will allow
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`deployment and, even if it goes below that, as long as the lock
`flag is set, it will allow deployment.
`So I guess the answer to your question, if I
`understand it, is, yes, it would allow deployment as long as the
`lock flag is set.
`So let me just move to step -- to slide 11, if I may.
`I'm going to give Mr. Chapman some time to talk about these
`last two limitations.
`This is the Institution Decision. And this argument
`that Patent Owner made concerning that you can't -- you have
`to always allow deployment whenever the parameter is above
`the first threshold, this was addressed by the Panel in its
`decision.
`
`And in response to this argument the Panel said
`Patent Owner's argument that the claim somehow prohibits
`further restrictions on airbag deployment is not supported by
`the claim language, and also there is nothing else in the record
`to support it. And we think this is an important point that we
`agree with.
`And, as mentioned, the claim doesn't recite always
`allow deployment when the relative weight parameter is above
`the first threshold. And based on the specification, perhaps
`
`
`
`15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`they could have written such a claim, but they didn't.
`And we think that the case law as well as the broad
`language of the claims supports our reading that the first
`threshold is found in figure A of Schousek.
`And with that I would like to leave the remaining
`time to Mr. Chapman.
`MR. CHAPMAN: Good afternoon, again. This is
`Mark Chapman for Toyota. If we could go to slide 14, please.
`So I'm going to address the other two limitations, the set a flag
`limitation and the clear the flag limitation. So here is the set
`a flag limitation on slide 14: "Set a lock flag when the
`relative weight parameter is above the lock threshold and
`deployment has been allowed for a given time."
`So as we explained in our papers, Schousek
`discloses this. First of all, the 50- pound maximum threshold
`in Schousek corresponds to the lock threshold. And as I will
`explain shortly with reference to figures 5A and 5B of
`Schousek, Schousek sets a lock flag when the weight is above
`that threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given
`time.
`
`So if we can go to 15, please. So here is figure 5A
`of Schousek. And we have highlighted boxes 72 and 74. And
`
`
`
`16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`in those boxes we can see that Schousek allows deployment
`when the weight goes above the lock threshold, which is the
`maximum threshold in Schousek. So we see in box 74 the
`decision is set to deploy if the weight goes above the
`maximum threshold in box 72. And then the algorithm
`proceeds down to figure 5B.
`So if we could go to slide 16, here is figure 5B and
`this is where we submit that Schousek is setting the lock flag
`and it is doing that after deployment has been allowed for a
`given time, namely five cycles of this algorithm of figures 5A
`and 5B. So if you set -- if the decision is set to deploy in box
`74 and that's maintained for five consecutive cycles, when you
`get to box 98 the algorithm will determine that all of the five
`decisions are the same, and at that point that decision to
`deploy will be transmitted to the module in box 100, and it
`will replace whatever the previous decision that was
`transmitted to the module was.
`And once that happens, that locks in the deploy
`decision until a new decision comes along to displace it. And
`that won't happen until you get five new consecutive decisions
`that are the same.
`So this, just to pause for a moment, the claim
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`requires deployment to have been allowed for a given time.
`And deployment has been allowed for a given time because the
`decision in box 74 has been set to deploy for five cycles,
`which Schousek discloses would be five seconds because each
`cycle takes one second.
`So if we could go to slide 17. This is just a
`summary slide. So just to recap, Schousek sets the lock flag
`when it transmits the deploy decision to the airbag module in
`box 100, because that locks in that deploy decision, and it
`does this after the weight exceeds the maximum threshold and
`the decision is set to deploy for five cycles or has been
`maintained for five seconds.
`If we go to the next slide, on this limitation the
`Patent Owner's argument, as I understand it, is that Schousek
`doesn't disclose this limitation because it does not consult the
`previous decision that was previously transmitted to the
`module in box 100.
`And our response to that is we don't think the
`limitation requires that. What it requires is that the flag be set
`when the weight goes above the threshold and deployment has
`been allowed for a given time, and that Schousek meets both
`of those requirements because it locks in that decision when
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`the weight goes above the threshold and the decision is set to
`deploy in box 74 for five consecutive cycles.
`So we think, if you go to the next slide, this is
`slide 19, in the Institution Decision the Board considered the
`Patent Owner's argument, which is the same argument I just
`described, and concluded that it had not persuaded them. And
`in the Patent Owner Response, after institution, the Patent
`Owner makes the same argument that it made in the
`preliminary response.
`And so we think the Board should, you know, make
`the same finding in the final decision that it did in the
`Institution Decision and conclude that Schousek discloses the
`setting a lock flag limitation.
`So unless there are any questions about that, given
`my time I would like to move to the third limitation.
`So if we move to slide 20, "clear the flag when the
`relative weight parameter is below the unlock threshold for a
`time." That's the third disputed limitation. So for this one it
`is Schousek's 10- pound threshold, the minimum infant seat
`weight threshold that corresponds to the unlock threshold.
`And, as I will explain, Schousek clears the lock flag when the
`weight goes below that threshold for a time.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`So if we go to slide 21, here again is figure 5A but
`this time we have highlighted boxes 76 and 78. And here you
`can see that Schousek will inhibit deployment when the weight
`goes below the unlock threshold.
`So if the weight goes below the unlock threshold in
`box 76, or the minimum threshold is how it is described in
`Schousek, then the decision is going to be set to not deploy in
`box 78.
`
`And then if we go to slide 22, the algorithm will
`continue to figure 5B, and here is where Schousek is going to
`clear the flag after the weight has been below that threshold
`for a time, as the claim requires, namely, again, the five cycles
`of the algorithm.
`So if you collect five decisions not to deploy in
`box 78, in other words, if that decision is maintained for five
`cycles, then Schousek will clear the flag by replacing a
`previous decision to deploy with the new decision to not
`deploy and transmit that decision to not deploy to the airbag
`module.
`
`So if we go to slide 23, this is just a summary
`slide. But just to recap here, Schousek, it clears the flag and
`it does that when it replaces the deploy decision with a
`
`
`
`20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`decision to not deploy, in boxes 100 and 102, and it does this
`after the weight has been below the minimum threshold for a
`time because it only does that after you have five cycles in
`which the weight is below that threshold and the decision is
`set to not deploy in box 78.
`So if we go to slide 24, on this limitation the
`Patent Owner's argument is that Schousek doesn't disclose this
`limitation because it also discloses inhibiting deployment
`when the weight is above the minimum threshold. In other
`words, if the center of weight distribution is forward of the
`reference lines, Schousek will inhibit deployment.
`And we don't think this is a good response because
`the fact that Schousek discloses that doesn't really matter
`because Schousek also discloses -- and it is sufficient that it
`discloses -- inhibiting deployment when the weight goes below
`the minimum thresholds. And as we just explained, it clears
`the flag when it goes below that threshold in the manner I just
`described in figure 5B.
`So now if we go to slide 25, here again is an
`excerpt from the Board's Institution Decision. And the Patent
`Owner made the argument that I just described in the
`preliminary response, and the Board considered the argument
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`and rejected it for the reasons that we just explained, which is
`that Schousek clears the flag when it replaces the decision to
`deploy with a new decision to not deploy after you have five
`cycles in which the decision is set to not deploy or inhibit.
`And once, again, in the Patent Owner Response the
`Patent Owner repeated the same argument that it made in the
`preliminary response. So, again, we see no reason for the
`Board to deviate from its original finding on this point.
`So if we go to the next slide -- that's it for those
`two disputed limitations. I don't know if there are any
`questions that the Board has for us about those? Okay.
`So Mr. Mandir addressed the first limitation and I
`addressed the last -- the second and third. Those are the only
`limitations that the Patent Owner disputes Schousek
`disclosing. So with respect to the other limitations of claim
`17, the additional limitation of claim 21, those are undisputed
`that Schousek discloses those.
`So just to wrap up on slide 27, Petitioners would --
`we submit that Schousek discloses all of the limitations of
`claim 17 and 21 and, therefore, we would ask that the Board
`find the claims to be anticipated by Schousek.
`Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you.
`MR. FAHMI: Good afternoon, Your Honors, and
`may it please the Board. The patentability of claim 17 and 21
`should be confirmed over Schousek.
`Your Honors, anticipation is a technical challenge,
`and one that must be met by strict standards. Unless all of the
`claim elements are found in exactly the form presented in the
`challenged claim, in other words, the same situation, united in
`the same way, to perform the identical function as in the
`claim, there is no anticipation.
`Now, here, contrary to the Petitioner's contentions,
`the minimum weight of an occupied infant seat as taught in
`Schousek is not equivalent to the recited first threshold of the
`relative weight parameter set forth in claim 17.
`In Schousek, airbag deployment is not simply
`allowed when seat sensors detect a weight above that minimum
`weight of an occupied infant seat. Instead, the airbag
`deployment is inhibited in those situations unless other
`circumstances, other conditions, are met.
`Furthermore, as Judge Plenzler noted, if you try to
`read the other threshold that Schousek describes, that is, the
`maximum weight of the occupied infant seat, as the claimed
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`first threshold, well, then, Schousek doesn't teach anything
`that would qualify as a lock threshold, because there is no
`other threshold in Schousek above that maximum weight in an
`occupied infant seat.
`Your Honors, I would invite your attention briefly
`to our slide number 3. As was noted, I don't think there is any
`real dispute here about what the teachings of Schousek are.
`Just to briefly recap, we know --
`JUDGE PLENZLER: Let me stop you right there
`then and ask you a quick question. Before we get into
`Schousek, it seems like, I think, what we talked about earlier,
`that the dispute is more centered around what does this
`“allowing deployment” language mean in the claim.
`Can you point me to the portion in the
`specification that is related to the first threshold referenced in
`the claim?
`
`MR. FAHMI: Yes, Your Honor. This comes up in
`two places in the specification. The first was, I believe, the
`passage that you identified in column 2 beginning at about line
`55 or so where it is indicated that deployment is always
`allowed for occupants of a certain weight.
`The other portion is beginning at the bottom of
`
`
`
`24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`column 4, in line 67, carrying over to the top of column 5, line
`1, where, again, deployment is allowed when the weight is
`above the first threshold. And it is identified quite clearly in
`figure 9, element 98, where we see that when the weight is
`above the first threshold there is an immediate decision to
`allow.
`
`So those are the points in the specification which
`would bear on that subject.
`JUDGE PLENZLER: The first portion that you
`mentioned at column 2, that language says always allow
`deployment for occupants exceeding 105 pounds.
`Wouldn't that make you think that if you took away
`the word "always" that would mean something different?
`Because the claim doesn't have the word "always," right? It
`just says allow deployment. So in the spec you would have to
`use the word "always" to convey the point that you are trying
`to make right now. Why don't you need that in the claim?
`MR. FAHMI: Because this is the only embodiment
`described in the specification, Your Honor. There are no
`contrary teachings. And when we discuss this passage in
`column 2 with the Petitioner's experts, for example,
`Mr. Andrews in the 292 proceeding, he said, and this is at
`
`
`
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`page 10 of his deposition transcript: That's right. It always
`allows deployment for occupants exceeding 105 pounds.
`So that's what this means, Your Honor. When it
`says allow deployment, it always allows deployment.
`JUDGE PLENZLER: Just an initial question I
`forgot to ask. I know in the petition it was pointed out that
`this patent expired before the petition was even filed.
`In your Patent Owner Response you reference
`broadest reasonable interpretation. Is there a dispute as to
`whether this patent has expired or is it agreed that this thing
`has expired?
`MR. FAHMI: No, it has expired, Your Honor. I
`think our point was broadest reasonable interpretation would
`not be appropriate. We would be operating under the Phillips
`standard.
`
`So, as I mentioned, Your Honor, if we look briefly
`at slide number 3, I don't think there is any real dispute here
`about how Schousek operates. If the total weight of the seat
`occupant is less than the minimum weight of the occupied
`infant seat, the seat is determined to be empty and airbag
`deployment is inhibited. This is explained in Schousek at
`column 5, lines 36 through 39, with reference to element 76
`
`
`
`26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`and 78 of figure 5A.
`We also know that if the total weight of the seat
`occupant is greater than the maximum weight of the occupied
`infant seat, airbag deployment is not inhibited. This is
`explained in column 5 of Schousek at lines 32 through 35 with
`reference to element 72 and 74 of the figure.
`And we further know that if the total weight of the
`seat occupant is between the minimum weight of the occupied
`infant seat and the maximum weight of the occupied infant
`seat, then airbag deployment depends on other factors, for
`example, legal requirements where the vehicle is operated and
`where the center of weight distribution is determined to be
`within the seat. This is explained in Schousek at column 5,
`lines 42 through 50, with reference to elements 82, 84 and 86
`of the figure.
`And, Your Honors, it is those teachings that lead to
`the conclusion that the minimum weight of the occupied infant
`seat as taught by Schousek is not equivalent to the recited first
`threshold in claim 17.
`As I mentioned, in Schousek even if the seat
`sensors determine th
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
