UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,012,007
`Issue Date: January 4, 2000
`Title: OCCUPANT DETECTION METHOD AND
`APPARTUS FOR AIR BAG SYSTEM
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT ANDREWS
`
`Case No. IPR 2016-00292
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00292 - Corrected Ex. 1007
`Toyota Motor Corp., Petitioner
`1
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,012,007
`Issue Date: January 4, 2000
`Title: OCCUPANT DETECTION METHOD AND
`APPARTUS FOR AIR BAG SYSTEM
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT ANDREWS
`
`Case No. IPR 2016-00292
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00292 - Corrected Ex. 1007
`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 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. 6,012,007 (“the ’007 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 ’007 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, (ii) the priority date of claims 17 and 21, and (iii) whether claims 17 and
`
`21 are anticipated by or 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 claims 17 and 21 of the ’007 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 ’007 patent and its
`
`prosecution history, as well as prior art to the ’007 patent including:
`
`a) U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327 to Schousek (“Schousek”)
`
`b) U.S. Patent No. 5,848,661 to Fu (“Fu”)
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’007 PATENT
`
`18. The ’007 patent is generally directed to “an occupant restraint system
`
`using an occupant detection device and particularly to an airbag system having seat
`
`pressure detectors in the seat.” (Ex. 1001, ’007 patent at col. 1, ll. 10-12.) The
`
`system “discriminate[s] . . . between large and small seat occupants for a
`
`determination of whether an airbag deployment should be permitted . . . [and]
`
`maintain[s] reliable operation in spite of dynamic variations in sensed pressures.”
`
`(Id. at col. 1, ll. 52-57.) “For example, the system may be tuned to inhibit airbag
`
`deployment for occupants weighing less than 66 pounds, and always allow
`
`deployment for occupants exceeding 105 pounds.” (Id. at col. 2, ll. 58-61.)
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`19. The system described by the ’007 patent does not include any novel
`
`hardware; rather, it uses a microprocessor and pressure sensors commercially
`
`available from Alps Electric Company. (Id. at col. 2, l. 61 to col. 3, l. 20.)
`
`Together, these components monitor the pressure applied to the seat and use that
`
`information to determine whether to allow or inhibit deployment of an airbag. (See
`
`id.) The algorithm employed by the system proceeds as follows. Ten times every
`
`second, the sensors are activated and sampled, with adjustment for calibration. (Id.
`
`at col. 3, ll. 39-41.) It then computes “decision measures” and runs “decision
`
`algorithms.” (Id. at col. 3, ll. 41-43.) Decision measures may include “total force
`
`and its threshold, sensor load ratings and measure, long term average of sensor
`
`readings and its threshold.” (Id. at col. 3, ll. 49-52.) Following a filter to remove
`
`“transient effects,” the system decides whether or not to inhibit airbag deployment
`
`and an appropriate signal issues. (Id. at col. 3, ll. 43-48.)
`
`20. The “main decision algorithm” is shown in Figure 8 and involves
`
`“processing an Adult Lock Flag.” (Id. at col. 4, ll. 36-37.) When the “Adult Lock
`
`Flag” is set, the system will always allow airbag deployment. (Id. at col. 4, ll. 40-
`
`41.) To determine whether to set the “Adult Lock Flag,” the total force measured
`
`by the seat sensors is compared to “a lock threshold[,] which is above the total
`
`force threshold” (i.e., the threshold used as the minimum allowable value for
`
`airbag deployment), and “an unlock threshold[,] which represents an empty seat.”
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at col. 4, ll. 41-44.) The flag is set if the total force exceeds the lock threshold
`
`for some minimum amount of time: If “the total force is greater than the lock
`
`threshold, and the lock timer is larger than the lock delay . . . the Adult Lock Flag
`
`is set.” (Id. at col. 4, ll. 44-50.) That is, if the threshold has been exceeded for a
`
`time interval longer than the lock delay, the Adult Lock flag is set.
`
`IV. CLAIMS OF THE ’007 PATENT
`
`21. The ’007 patent includes 27 claims, of which claims 1, 16, and 17 are
`
`independent claims.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that only claims 17 and 21 are at issue in Toyota’s
`
`petition for inter partes review. They are reproduced below for reference:
`
`17. In a vehicle restraint system having a controller for deploying air
`bags, means for inhibiting and allowing deployment according to
`whether a seat is occupied by a person of at least a minimum
`weight comprising:
`seat sensors responding to the weight of an occupant to produce
`sensor outputs;
`the sensor outputs and
`to
`a microprocessor coupled
`programmed to inhibit and allow deployment according to
`sensor response and particularly programmed to
`determine measures represented by individual sensor outputs
`and calculate from the sensor outputs a relative weight
`parameter,
`establish a first threshold of the relative weight parameter,
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`allow deployment when the relative weight parameter is
`above the first threshold,
`establish a lock threshold above the first threshold,
`set a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is above
`the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for a
`given time,
`establish an unlock threshold at a level indicative of an
`empty seat,
`clear the flag when the relative weight parameter is below
`the unlock threshold for a time, and
`allow deployment while the lock flag is set.
`
`21. Means for inhibiting and allowing deployment as defined in claim
`17 wherein the relative weight parameter is the total force detected
`by all the sensors.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`23.
`
`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
`
`instead construed in the same manner as in district court. However, the different
`
`claim construction standard would not change my opinions herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a district court in litigation involving the ’007 patent
`
`has construed the term “level indicative of an empty seat” and to mean “a
`
`force/pressure measurement of zero or substantially zero weight on the seat.”
`
`However, I have been asked to apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “level
`
`indicative of an empty seat” for the purposes of my analysis.
`
`25.
`
`I further understand that the district court found the phrase “relative
`
`weight parameter” to be indefinite. However, the district court also found that
`
`claim 21 is not indefinite because the “relative weight parameter” is limited to “the
`
`total force detected by all the sensors.” As such, I treat the term “relative weight
`
`parameter” in claim 17 as including “the total force detected by all the sensors,”
`
`without applying “relative weight parameter” directly.
`
`VI. UNPATENTABILITY ANALYSIS
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, claims 17 and 21 of the ’007 patent are unpatentable
`
`because they are anticipated by the prior art and also would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`A. Legal Standards
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is anticipated when a single piece of
`
`prior art describes every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or
`
`inherently, arranged in the same way as in the claim. For inherent anticipation to
`
`be found, it is required that the missing descriptive material is necessarily present
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`in the prior art. I understand that, for the purpose of an inter partes review, prior
`
`art that anticipates a claim can include both patents and printed publications from
`
`anywhere in the world.
`
`28.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`indicia of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claimed
`
`subject matter.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that a claim is supported by the written description of a
`
`patent application only when that application reasonably conveys to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the
`
`claimed subject matter as of the filing date. I have been informed that original
`
`claims are part of the specification. I have further been informed that the
`
`application need not describe the claimed invention using the same language as the
`
`claim, but that the mere obviousness of a claim over the application’s disclosure,
`
`on its own, is not sufficient to establish written description support and that a claim
`
`to a combination of elements must be supported by a description of that
`
`combination in the specification, not merely a description of individual elements. I
`
`have further been informed that a negative limitation may be supported by a
`
`description of a reason to exclude the corresponding positive limitation.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`30.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`31.
`
`In my opinion, in June of 1997, a person with ordinary skill in the art
`
`with respect to the technology disclosed by the ’007 patent would have at 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.
`
`32. Based on my experience and education, I consider myself (both now
`
`and as of June 1997) to be a person of at least ordinary skill in the art with respect
`
`to the field of technology implicated by the ’007 patent.
`
`C.
`
`Priority Date of Claims 17 and 21
`
`33.
`
`I understand that the ’007 patent is listed as a “continuation-in-part”
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 (“the ’375 patent”).1 I have been asked to provide
`
`my opinion of whether the ’375 patent provides a written description of claims 17
`
`and 21 of the ’007 patent.
`
`I have also submitted a declaration in support of Toyota’s petition for inter
`1
`
`partes review of claim 11 of the ’375 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`34.
`
`In my opinion, the ’375 patent does not provide a written description
`
`of claim 17 (or of claim 21, which depends from claim 17 and incorporates its
`
`limitations). For example, claim 17 recites a “lock threshold,” a “lock flag,” and
`
`an “unlock threshold” which for part of the claimed algorithm for determining
`
`whether airbag deployment should be allowed. These features are included in the
`
`specification of the ‘007 patent, but were not included in the ’375 parent patent
`
`(See generally Ex. 1004, ’375 patent.) And, in my opinion, nothing in the
`
`disclosure of the ’375 patent—for example, its discussions of thresholds and
`
`flags—would convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in
`
`possession of the “lock threshold,” “lock flag,” and “unlock threshold” claimed by
`
`the ’007 patent.
`
`D. Ground 1: Anticipation by Schousek
`
`35.
`
`I understand that Schousek is prior art to the ’007 patent. In my
`
`opinion, Schousek anticipates claims 17 and 21.
`
`1. Overview of Schousek
`
`36. 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 col. 2, ll. 17-19; see also Abstract; col. 4, ll. 36-48.)
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`“The sensors are preferably located just beneath the seat cover…” (Id. at col. 4, ll.
`
`49-50.) Figure 2 provides an example of how the sensors can be distributed in a
`
`seat:
`
`
`37. Schousek’s system also includes a processor programmed to sample
`
`the measurements from the sensors. (Id. at col. 2, ll. 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 col. 2, ll. 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 col. 2, ll. 31-37.) It is also used to “determine the position of
`
`an infant seat.” (Id. at col. 2, ll. 37-40.) Accordingly, the processor can determine
`
`whether to enable or disable airbag deployment. (See id. at col. 2, ll. 40-41.)
`
`38. Figure 5A partially illustrates the occupant classification and airbag
`
`enablement process followed by Schousek’s system:
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`39.
`
`
`“[T]he sensors are enabled and each sensor sampled” at step 64. (Id.
`
`at col. 5, ll. 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 col. 5, ll. 28-31.) Then, the “center of force or weight distribution” is
`
`determined at step 70. (Id. at col. 5, ll. 31-32.) The total weight and center of
`
`weight are used to classify the occupant and make an airbag deployment decision:
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`“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 col. 5, ll. 32-35.) The maximum weight of
`
`an infant seat may be set at 50 pounds. (Id. at col. 2, ll. 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 col. 5, ll. 36-39.) The minimum
`
`weight of an infant seat may be set at 10 pounds. (Id. at col. 2, ll. 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.
`
`40.
`
`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 col. 5, ll. 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 col. 5, ll. 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”
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`in steps 82 and 86. (Id. at col. 5, ll. 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.
`
`41. The output of this portion of Schousek’s system is “monitored for
`
`failure by testing for consistency of the decisions.” (Id. at col. 2, ll. 48-50.)
`
`Following the initial procedure for deciding whether to allow airbag deployment as
`
`shown in Figure 5A, the output is provided to the algorithm in Figure 5B:
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`42. Schousek describes this procedure thusly:
`
`
`
`The decision made in each loop execution is stored in an array <90>
`and if less than five decisions have been stored <92> a decision
`counter is incremented <94>. If the counter reaches a count of five,
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`the counter is cleared <96> and the decisions are compared to
`determine if they are all the same <98>. If they are the same, the
`current decision is transmitted to the SIR module 10 <100>, the
`current decision is labelled as the previous decision <102>, and a
`faulty decision counter is cleared <104>. If all five decisions are not
`the same, the previous decision is retransmitted to the module 10
`<106> and the faulty decision counter is incremented <108>. If a
`large number of consecutive faulty decisions occur <110> a fault
`signal is transmitted to the SIR module 10 <112> and the faulty
`decision counter is cleared <114>. The maximum allowed number
`of unstable readings may, for example, amount to one half hour of
`operation.
`
`(Id. at col. 5, l. 53 – col. 6, l. 1.) In other words, Schousek’s system
`
`continuously monitors its own decisions. If five consecutive decisions have
`
`the same result will the system lock in that decision and output it to control
`
`airbag deployment. If the five consecutive decisions are not the same, the
`
`system will remain locked into its previous decision and label the
`
`inconsistent cycle of decisions “faulty.” After some number of faulty
`
`decisions, the system will determine that something is wrong. Therefore,
`
`“an occasional spurious decision, which may be due to occupant movement
`
`or other instability,” will not affect system operation; rather, only
`
`“[e]xtended instability” will result in errors. (Id. at col. 6, ll. 2-6.)
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`43. To help explain the basic operation of this monitoring, I refer to an
`
`annotated version of Figure 5B. In this figure a decision has been generated (using
`
`the steps provided in Figure 5A). If five decision cycles have not passed, the flow
`
`passes from step 92 to step 94 where the decision counter is incremented and the
`
`flow returns to the decision generation steps provided in Figure 5A. If five decision
`
`cycles have passed without clearing the decision counter, the flow at step 92 passes
`
`to step 96, where the decision counter is cleared. At step 96 the last five decisions
`
`are examined. If they are all the same, then flow passes to step 100 where the
`
`decision is transmitted to the SIR module where it replaces the previous decision
`
`(setp 102). If the decisions are not all the same, then the system transmits the
`
`previous decision to the SIR module, which is to say the decision state of the SIR
`
`module will remain unchanged.
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`44. The ’007 patent’s discussion of the “Background of the Invention”
`
`makes reference to Schousek. (Ex. 1001, ’007 patent, at col. 1, ll. 35-38.) The
`
`’007 patent characterizes Schousek as follows:
`
`It has been proposed in [Schousek and the ’375 patent] to
`incorporate pressure sensors in the passenger seat and monitor the
`response of the sensors by a microprocessor to evaluate the weight
`and weight distribution, and for inhibiting deployment in certain
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`cases. These disclosures teach the use of sensors on the top surface
`of the seat, just under the seat cover, and algorithms especially for
`detecting the presence and orientation of infant seats. Both of these
`disclosures form a foundation for the present invention and are
`incorporated herein by reference.
`
`(Id. at col. 1, ll. 32-44.)
`
`45. While Schousek is characterized as a “foundation” for the invention of
`
`the ’007 patent, the ’007 patent aspires to “provide a system which is particularly
`
`suited for discriminating between heavy and light occupants and for robust
`
`operation under dynamic conditions such as occupant shifting or bouncing due to
`
`rough roads.” (Id. at col. 1, ll. 43-48.)
`
`2.
`
`Anticipation of Claims 17 and 21
`
`46.
`
`In my opinion, and notwithstanding the ’007 patent’s attempt to
`
`distinguish itself from Schousek, Schousek anticipates claims 17 and 21 of the
`
`’007 patent.
`
`47. Claim 17 is directed to “a vehicle restraint system having a controller
`
`for deploying air bags, means for inhibiting and allowing deployment according to
`
`whether a seat is occupied by a person of at least a minimum weight.” In my
`
`opinion, Schousek discloses the same kind of system. In particular, Schousek
`
`discloses an “[a]n air bag restraint system … equipped with seat occupant sensing
`
`apparatus.” (Ex. 1002, Schousek at Abstract.) As described above (¶ 44),
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`Schousek arranges pressure sensors in the seat. The data from these sensors is
`
`used by a “microprocessor” to “determine a total weight parameter … and
`
`determine the center of weight distribution.” (Id. at col. 2, ll. 24-30; see also
`
`Abstract.) “Based on the minimum weight of an occupied infant seat (about 10
`
`pounds) and the maximum weight of an occupied infant seat (50 pounds),
`
`maximum and minimum thresholds are calibrated, and those are compared to the
`
`measured total weight parameter ….” (Id. at col. 2, ll. 31-37; see also col. 5, ll. 26-
`
`50.) “[I]t can then be decided whether to deploy the air bag during a crash.” (Id. at
`
`col. 2, ll. 40-41.) Schousek’s system will allow airbag deployment if the total
`
`weight exceeds a 10-pound minimum and other conditions are met, and will allow
`
`airbag deployment if total weight exceeds a 50-pound threshold regardless of other
`
`conditions. See supra ¶ 39.
`
`48. Claim 17 next recites “seat sensors responding to the weight of an
`
`occupant to produce sensor outputs.” In my opinion, this also is disclosed by
`
`Schousek. As already described, Schousek includes an array of pressure sensors in
`
`the seat of the vehicle whose output is used by a microprocessor to control airbag
`
`deployment. See supra ¶¶ 44; e.g., Ex. 1002, Schousek at Abstract; col. 2, ll. 12-
`
`41; col. 3, l. 64 – col. 4, l. 11; col. 4, ll. 41-63; col. 5, ll. 17-28; Figs. 2, 6; Fig. 5A,
`
`step 64.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that these pressure
`
`sensors “respond[] to the weight of an occupant.” Schousek confirms this, noting
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`that “[w]hile the sensors are localized and do not actually weigh the whole person
`
`or infant seat, they can measure weight parameters which together represent the
`
`total weight and can be empirically related to the total weight.” (Ex. 1002,
`
`Schousek at col. 4, ll. 41-48.)
`
`49. Claim 17 next recites “a microprocessor coupled to the sensor outputs
`
`and programmed to inhibit and allow deployment according to sensor response and
`
`particularly programmed to determine measures represented by individual sensor
`
`outputs and calculate from the sensor outputs a relative weight parameter.” Claim
`
`21 specifies that “the relative weight parameter is the total force detected by all the
`
`sensors.” In my opinion, Schousek discloses these limitations. “The seat occupant
`
`sensing system 12 comprises a microprocessor 22 … [which] analyzes the sensor
`
`inputs and issues a decision whether to inhibit air bag deployment ….” (Id. at col.
`
`3, ll. 36-48; see also Fig. 6.) The microprocessor “is programmed to sample each
`
`sensor [and] determine a total weight parameter by summing the pressures
`
`registered by the several sensors.” (Id. at col. 2, ll. 24-30; see also Fig. 5A, step
`
`68; col. 2, ll. 12-17; col. 4, ll. 49-63 (“When weight measurements are made by a
`
`particular sensor, the current voltage is read and subtracted from the calibration
`
`voltage. The difference voltage then is a function of the pressure exerted on the
`
`sensor and is empirically related to actual occupant weight. That is, the sum of
`
`measured voltage differences is a weight parameter which represents occupant
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`weight ….”); col. 5, ll. 28-32.) The microprocessor is also “programmed to …
`
`determine the center of weight distribution from the sum of the products of each
`
`sensed pressure and its distance from the rear of the seat, and dividing the product
`
`by the total weight.” (Id. at col. 2, ll. 24-30; see also Fig. 5 A, step 70.)
`
`50. Finally, claim 17 recites “establish[ing]” three “threshold[s]” and the
`
`effects given to those thresholds:
`
`
`
`
`
`“a first threshold of the relative weight parameter,” whereby the
`
`system “allow[s] deployment when the relative weight parameter is
`
`above the first threshold”;
`
`“a lock threshold above the first threshold,” whereby the system “sets
`
`a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is above the lock
`
`threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given time” and
`
`“allows deployment while the lock flag is set”; and
`
`
`
`“an unlock threshold at a level indicative of an empty seat,” whereby
`
`the system “clear[s] the flag when the relative weight parameter is
`
`below the unlock threshold for a time.”
`
`51.
`
`In my opinion, Schousek discloses all of these limitations.
`
`52. First, Schousek discloses the claimed “first threshold.” In particular,
`
`Schousek’s system establishes a “minimum weight threshold for an occupant
`
`infant seat” which is set at 10 pounds. (Id. at co
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
