UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1. Introduction. .............................................................................................. 1
`
`2. Overview of the ‘007 Patent. .................................................................... 2
`
`3. Argument. .................................................................................................. 8
`
`A. Claim Construction. ............................................................................. 8
`
`B. The Challenged Claims Are Not Anticipated by Schousek. ............ 11
`
`i. Overview of Schousek. ........................................................................ 12
`
`ii. The Minimum Weight of an Occupied Infant Seat Taught by Schousek
`is Not Equivalent to the First Threshold of a Relative Weight Parameter
`Recited in the Challenged Claims. ......................................................... 14
`
`iii. The Maximum Weight of an Occupied Infant Seat Taught by
`Schousek is Not Equivalent to the First Threshold of a Relative Weight
`Parameter Recited in the Challenged Claims. ....................................... 16
`
`iv. Schousek Does Not Teach Setting a Lock Flag When a Relative
`Weight Parameter is Above a Lock Threshold and Air Bag Deployment
`has Been Allowed for a Given Time, as Recited in the Challenged
`Claims. ................................................................................................... 19
`
`v. Schousek Does Not Teach Clearing a Lock Flag When a Relative
`Weight Parameter is Below an Unlock Threshold for a Time, as Recited
`in the Challenged Claims. ...................................................................... 22
`
`vi. Schousek Does Not Allow Deployment of an Airbag When the
`Relative Weight Parameter is Above the First Threshold, as Recited in
`the Challenged Claims. .......................................................................... 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4. Conclusion. .............................................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................. 10
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................... 9
`
`In re Cortright,
`165 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................. 10
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................... 9
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................. 9
`
`Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co.,
`730 F.2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ................................................................. 18
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................. 18
`
`Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co.,
`868 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ................................................................. 15
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Va. Innov. Scis., Inc.,
`Case IPR2013-00569 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2013) .............................................. 8
`
`Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm.,
`339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................... 15, 21, 23, 24
`
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................. 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 112(d) ................................................................................. passim
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2001
`
`
`
`Transcript of deposition of Mr. Andrews
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`1. Introduction.
`
`The Board should confirm the patentability of claims 17 and 21 of
`
`U.S. Patent 6,012,007 (the “’007 Patent”) because Schousek fails to teach or
`
`suggest allowing deployment of air bags when a relative weight parameter
`
`used by a vehicle restraint system is above a first threshold, establishing a
`
`lock threshold above the first threshold, and setting a lock flag when the
`
`relative weight parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has
`
`been allowed for a given time. As explained below, and contrary to
`
`Petitioner’s contentions, the minimum weight of an occupied infant seat as
`
`used by Schousek is not equivalent to the first threshold of the relative
`
`weight parameter recited in the challenged claims. This is because in
`
`Schousek, air bag deployment is not allowed when seat sensors detect a
`
`weight above that minimum weight of an occupied infant seat. Instead, air
`
`bag deployment is inhibited in such circumstances unless other conditions
`
`are met.
`
`
`
`Further, even if one were to equate the minimum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat as used by Schousek with the first threshold of the
`
`relative weight parameter recited in the challenged claims, it would still be
`
`the case that Schousek fails to teach or suggest establishing a lock threshold
`
`above the first threshold, and setting a lock flag when the relative weight
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for
`
`a given time. Instead, in the system described by Schousek, air bag
`
`deployment is permitted or inhibited irrespective of whether or not
`
`deployment has been allowed for a given time. Indeed, in some instances air
`
`bag deployment may be permitted even if previously such deployment was
`
`inhibited, or even if the seat sensors determine that a seat occupant weighs
`
`less than a purported “lock threshold.”
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to prove the unpatentability of any
`
`of the challenged claims and the Board should find in favor of Patent Owner
`
`on all issues nominated for trial.
`
`
`
`2. Overview of the ‘007 Patent.
`The ’007 Patent discloses a method of controlling airbag deployment
`
`using pressure sensors to allow or inhibit airbag deployment based on
`
`passenger weight. Ex. 1001 at Abstract; Ex. 2001 at 7:16 – 8:9; 9:18-23.
`
`According to the specification, air bag deployment is inhibited when a seat is
`
`empty or occupied by a small child. Deployment is allowed when the seat is
`
`occupied by a larger passenger. Ex. 1001 at 2:55-58; Ex. 2001 at 10:1-15.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’007 patent (below) shows a typical airbag (or
`
`supplemental inflatable restraint -- “SIR”) system:
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:15-16, 2:18-19; Ex. 2001 at 10:16 – 11:25. An accelerometer
`
`(15) senses an impending crash and a microprocessor (16) receives signals
`
`from the accelerometer and determines whether to deploy an air bag. Ex.
`
`1001 at 2:46-49; Ex. 2001 at 12:1-18. On the other side of the figure, seat
`
`occupant sensors (26, 28) communicate with a separate microprocessor (22),
`
`which determines whether airbag deployment should be inhibited. Ex. 1001
`
`at 3:4-7. The occupant sensors are a series of voltage dividers made of
`
`resistors (26) in series with a pressure sensor or variable resistor (28). Id. at
`
`2:64-3:2. The seat occupant detector microprocessor (22) analyzes seat
`
`occupant sensor voltage in order to derive passenger weight information. Id.
`
`at 2:61-3:7; Ex. 2001 at 13:7 – 14:13.
`
`The positions of the sensors are shown in Figures 2 and 3 of the ’007
`
`patent, which are reproduced below (with annotations added to Fig. 2). Ex.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`1001 at 2:20-21; Ex. 2001 at 14:14 – 15:1.
`
`The seat cushion has an upper surface 38 and a lower surface 40. Ex. 1001 at
`
`3:21-22. The lower surface is “seated on a rigid sheet or plastic form.” Id. at
`
`
`
`3:21-23. The form (42) “holds a dozen pressure sensors 28 on its upper
`
`surface so that the sensors are pressed against the bottom surface 40 of the
`
`seat cushion.” Id. at 3:24-27.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 of the ‘007 Patent, which is reproduced below, is a flowchart
`
`overview of the operation of the system. Id. at 3:36; Ex. 2001 at 15:4-24.
`
`The seat occupant detector microprocessor (22) reads the sensor values (46).
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:37-38. One sensor at a time is turned on and sampled once
`
`every 100 msec. Id. at 3:40-41. The readings are then bias corrected -- a bias
`
`calibrated for each sensor is subtracted from each sensor reading (48). Id. at
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`3:37-41. Then, decision measures are computed (50) and decision algorithms
`
`are run (52) to produce an output, which output (54) represents a decision
`
`(with an accompanying signal) to either inhibit (56) or allow (58) air bag
`
`deployment. Id. at 3:41-46.
`
`The decision measure computations involve calculation of: the total
`
`force (the sum of the sensor
`
`outputs) and a total force
`
`threshold; sensor load ratings
`
`and measure; the long term
`
`average of the sensor readings
`
`and its threshold; and group
`
`sensor measures and thresholds.
`
`Id. at 3:48-55; 4:11-15. The
`
`different thresholds are variable
`
`and may increase and decrease over time. Id at 3:56-60. Inhibit times (during
`
`which no variation is permitted) are selected to control the rates of increase
`
`and decrease. Id. at 3:60-61; and see Ex. 2001 at 17:18 – 22:22.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`The main decision algorithm uses an “Adult Lock Flag” as shown in
`
`Figure 8 of the ’007 Patent (below). Ex. 1001 at 4:36-37; Ex. 2001 at 23:1-
`
`19. Here, the term
`
`“adult” is used to
`
`distinguish between an
`
`occupant of a certain
`
`weight and a “child.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 4:37-40;
`
`Ex. 2001 at 23:20 –
`
`24:5. A lock threshold
`
`and an unlock
`
`threshold are used to
`
`determine whether an “adult,” or occupant above a threshold mass, is in the
`
`seat. Ex. 1001 at 4:36-44. A lock timer measures the time after the vehicle
`
`ignition is turned on, and a lock delay on the order of one to five minutes is
`
`used. Id. at 4:42-44; Ex. 2001 at 24:6 – 25:20.
`
`A final decision algorithm for whether to deploy an airbag is shown in
`
`Figure 10 of the ’007 Patent, which is reproduced below. Ex. 1001 at 5:8-9.
`
`A counter tabulates from zero to 255, and is incremented if an allow
`
`decision is made and decremented if an inhibit decision is made. Ex. 1001 at
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`5:9-13. Final consent to deploy is granted when the count exceeds 133. Id. at
`
`5:13-14. If consent is granted, a count over 123 is needed to maintain the
`
`state, and if the count falls
`
`below 123, the consent is
`
`revoked and deployment is
`
`inhibited. Id. at 5:9-18. By
`
`averaging measures over time,
`
`the system can account for occupant movement. Id. at 5:31-33; Ex. 2001 at
`
`26:1 – 27:10.
`
`Claim 17 is the only independent claim of the ’007 Patent challenged
`
`in the present petition and it is reproduced below:
`
`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;
`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,
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`establish a first threshold of the relative weight
`parameter,
`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.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 7:51 – 8:8
`
`
`3. Argument.
`A. Claim Construction.
`In the arguments below,1 Patent Owner distinguishes the claims over
`
`the art cited by Petitioner and, in doing so, adopts certain constructions of
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Patent Owner reserves the right to pursue claim constructions in a district
`
`court according to the standards applicable in that venue. See Samsung
`
`Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Va. Innov. Scis., Inc., Case IPR2013-00569, Paper 9, slip
`
`op. at 2 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2013).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`various claim terms. The Board interprets the claims of a challenged patent
`
`using a “broadest reasonable construction” approach. Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012); and see 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Such an interpretation of a claim’s language, however, is
`
`not one that permits any reading thereof. Instead, it is one that must be made
`
`“in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004); see also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010) (“The broadest-construction rubric coupled with the term
`
`‘comprising’ does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims
`
`to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention.”), In re
`
`Skvorecz, 580 F.3d at 1267 (“The protocol of giving claims their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation . . . does not include giving claims a legally
`
`incorrect interpretation.”); In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2011) (even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Board's
`
`construction “cannot be divorced from the specification and the record
`
`evidence,”). Thus, the focus of the inquiry regarding the meaning of a claim
`
`should be what would be reasonable from the perspective of one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d at 1260, and an
`
`interpretation that is inconsistent with the express disclosure and objectives
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`of the patent is not “reasonable.” Id.; and see, In re Cortright, 165 F.3d
`
`1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Further, unless the patentee has clearly
`
`demonstrated an intention to stray, there is a “heavy presumption” that a
`
`claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
`
`Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`As used in claim 17, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that “the flag” recited in the step of “clear the flag when the
`
`relative weight parameter is below the unlock threshold for a time,” is the
`
`same “unlock flag” recited in the step of “set a lock flag when the relative
`
`weight parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been
`
`allowed for a given time.” Ex. 2001 at 27:15 – 28:4.
`
`According to claim 17, the lock flag is “set when the relative weight
`
`parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for
`
`a given time.” Id. at 28:9-12.
`
`According to claim 17, the lock threshold is established above the first
`
`threshold. Id. at 28:13-19. “The first threshold is one of the thresholds
`
`against which the relative weight parameter is measured.” Id. at 28:24 –
`
`29:2. As used in the context of claim 17, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand that a threshold is a value against which a measured
`
`quantity is compared. Id. at 29:3 – 30:1.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`According to claim 17, the lock threshold is cleared when the relative
`
`weight parameter is below the unlock threshold for some time. Id. at 30:2-9.
`
`
`
`B. The Challenged Claims Are Not Anticipated by Schousek.
`
`Schousek, US Pat. 5,474,327 (Ex. 1002) does not anticipate claims 17
`
`and 21. Schousek describes a system that employs very different procedures
`
`than those recited in claim 17 of the ’007 Patent for controlling deployment
`
`of an air bag. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 at Figs. 1 and 5A-5B. For example,
`
`Schousek fails to teach or suggest allowing deployment of an air bag when a
`
`relative weight parameter used by a vehicle restraint system is above a first
`
`threshold, establishing a lock threshold above the first threshold, and setting
`
`a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is above the lock threshold
`
`and deployment has been allowed for a given time.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i. Overview of Schousek.
`
`In Schousek, air bag deployment is determined based on an evaluation
`
`of the weight of a seat occupant vis-à-vis certain thresholds. If the total
`
`weight of the seat occupant is
`
`less than a minimum weight of
`
`an occupied infant seat, the seat
`
`is determined to be empty and
`
`air bag deployment is inhibited.
`
`If the total weight of the seat
`
`occupant is greater than a
`
`maximum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat, air bag
`
`deployment is not inhibited.
`
`Finally, if the total weight of the
`
`seat occupant is determined to
`
`be between the minimum weight
`
`of an occupied infant seat and the maximum weight of an occupied infant
`
`seat, air bag deployment depends on factors such as the legal requirements
`
`of where the vehicle is operated and/or whether the center of weight
`
`distribution is forward or aft of a seat reference line. Id. at 2:12-46; 4:55 –
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`5:3; 5:23-50; Ex. 2001 at 31:18-24; 33:3-15. This algorithm is illustrated in
`
`Fig. 5A of Schousek. See steps 68 – 86 of Fig. 5A (reproduced above); and
`
`see Ex. 2001 at 33:20 – 39:7 (explaining process illustrated in Fig. 5A).
`
`Schousek also describes a fault detection procedure for an air bag
`
`control system. As illustrated in Fig. 5B (reproduced below), faults are
`
`detected by comparing the
`
`inhibit/no inhibit decisions
`
`reached in five consecutive
`
`loops of the process illustrated
`
`in Fig. 5A. Ex. 1002 at 5:51 –
`
`6:1; Ex. 2001 at 39:14 – 41:12.
`
`If the inhibit/no inhibit decision
`
`is consistent over five
`
`consecutive loops, it is deemed
`
`correct and that inhibit/no
`
`inhibit decision is forwarded to
`
`the air bag deployment module.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 5:51-61; Ex. 2001 at 41:13 – 42:15. If, however, the five
`
`decisions are not the same, a previous inhibit/no inhibit decision is
`
`forwarded to the air bag deployment module and a fault registered. If a large
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`number of consecutive faults are noted, then a fault condition is reported to
`
`the air bag deployment module. Ex. 1002 at 5:61-67; Ex. 2001 at 45:15 –
`
`47:9. If this problem persists, a fault indicator is illuminated. Ex. 1002 at
`
`6:2-6.
`
`
`
`ii. The Minimum Weight of an Occupied Infant Seat Taught by
`Schousek is Not Equivalent to the First Threshold of a Relative
`Weight Parameter Recited in the Challenged Claims.
`
`As indicated above, claim 17 of the ’007 Patent requires, inter alia:
`
`determin[ing] measures represented by individual
`sensor outputs and calculate from the sensor outputs a
`relative weight parameter,
`establish[ing] a first threshold of the relative
`weight parameter,
`allow[ing] deployment when the relative weight
`parameter is above the first threshold
`
`Id. at 7:60-66. Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, Pet. at 21-22, the minimum
`
`weight of an occupied infant seat, as taught by Schousek, is not equivalent to
`
`the recited “first threshold of the relative weight parameter.”
`
`
`
`According to Schousek, even if the seat sensors determine that the
`
`total weight of the seat occupant is greater than the minimum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat, air bag deployment is not allowed. Ex. 1002 at 5:39-47;
`
`Ex. 2001 at 36:20 – 38:25 (“[W]hen the total weight is greater than the
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`minimum seat threshold and less than the maximum seat threshold, so you're
`
`in that middle ground, and it's forward of the reference line then the decision
`
`not to deploy will be made.”) Instead, only if the center of weight
`
`distribution is determined to be not forward of a reference line—a condition
`
`indicative of a forward-facing infant seat—is air bag deployment permitted.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 5:47-50.
`
`
`
`This is contrary to the requirements of claim 17 of the ’007 Patent.
`
`According to the claim, when the relative weight parameter is above the first
`
`threshold, deployment is allowed. No other requirements need be met.
`
`A patent claim is “invalid for anticipation [only] if a single prior art
`
`reference discloses each and every limitation” of the claim. Schering Corp.
`
`v. Geneva Pharm., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Moreover, “The
`
`identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the
`
`… claim.”). Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1989). As demonstrated above, if one attempts to read the minimum weight
`
`of an occupied infant seat as a “first threshold of the relative weight
`
`parameter,” then Schousek fails to meet these requirements because even if
`
`that condition is met, air bag deployment is not allowed. Only if the center
`
`of weight distribution is determined to be consistent with a forward-facing
`
`infant seat is air bag deployment permitted. Ex. 1002 at 5:47-50; Ex. 2001 at
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`38:5-10. Consequently, claim 17 of the ‘007 Patent is not anticipated by
`
`Schousek.
`
`
`
`Claim 21 depends from claim 17. Because each dependent claim
`
`necessarily includes the limitations of its respective parent, independent
`
`claim, 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), claim 21 is not anticipated by Schousek for at
`
`least the reasons specified above. See, e.g., VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`
`767 F.3d 1308, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“A claim is anticipated only if each
`
`and every element is found within a single prior art reference, arranged as
`
`claimed.”)
`
`
`
`iii. The Maximum Weight of an Occupied Infant Seat Taught by
`Schousek is Not Equivalent to the First Threshold of a Relative
`Weight Parameter Recited in the Challenged Claims.
`
`Petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the other threshold taught
`
`by Schousek—the maximum weight of an occupied infant seat—is
`
`equivalent to the “first threshold of the relative weight parameter” recited in
`
`claim 17 of the ’007 Patent. This is because whenever the seat sensors in
`
`Schousek determine that the total weight sensed is greater than the maximum
`
`weight of an occupied infant seat, air bag deployment is permitted. Ex. 1002
`
`at 5:32-35; Ex. 2001 at 39:1-7. This decision (to permit air bag deployment)
`
`is stored in an array. Ex. 1002 at Fig. 5B el. 90; Ex. 2001 at 39:14-23. When
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`five such concurrent decisions have been so stored, the decision to permit air
`
`bag deployment is transmitted to the SIR module. Ex. 1002 at Fig. 5B el.
`
`100; Ex. 2001 at 40:7-24; 42:9-15. In addition, this new decision (to permit
`
`air bag deployment) will be become the “previous decision.” Ex. 1002 at
`
`Fig. 5B el. 102.
`
`Petitioner reads the setting of a “previous decision” to allow
`
`deployment as setting a lock flag. Pet. at 22-24. As indicated above, the
`
`“previous decision” will be set to allow deployment whenever there are five
`
`consecutive decisions to permit same. Ex. 2001 at 40:7-24; 42:9-15. This
`
`will occur whenever the seat sensors determine that the total weight sensed
`
`is greater than the maximum weight of an occupied infant seat.
`
`However, claim 17 requires that the lock flag be set when “the relative
`
`weight parameter is above the lock threshold,” and the lock threshold must
`
`be established “above the first threshold.” Ex. 1001 at 7:63-66. In Schousek,
`
`there is no threshold that is greater than the maximum weight of an occupied
`
`infant seat. Therefore, if the maximum weight of an occupied infant seat is
`
`deemed equivalent to the “first threshold of the relative weight parameter,”
`
`there is no lock threshold that is established “above the first threshold.”
`
`Instead, the “previous decision” will be set to allow deployment whenever
`
`there are five consecutive loops in which the total weight sensed is greater
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`than the maximum weight of an occupied infant seat. Accordingly, if
`
`Petitioner contends that the maximum weight of an occupied infant seat is
`
`equivalent to the “first threshold of the relative weight parameter” recited in
`
`claim 17, then claim 17 is not anticipated by Schousek because there is no
`
`lock threshold established “above the first threshold.” Lindemann
`
`Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1459
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1984) (The requirement that the prior art elements themselves be
`
`“arranged as in the claim” means that claims cannot be “treated . . . as mere
`
`catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-part relationships set
`
`forth in the claims and that give the claims their meaning.”). Net MoneyIN,
`
`Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[U]nless a
`
`reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of
`
`the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined
`
`in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior
`
`invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102.”).
`
`Claim 21 depends from claim 17. Because each dependent claim
`
`necessarily includes the limitations of its respective parent, independent
`
`claim, 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), claim 21 is not anticipated by Schousek for at
`
`least the reasons specified above.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`iv. Schousek Does Not Teach Setting a Lock Flag When a Relative
`Weight Parameter is Above a Lock Threshold and Air Bag
`Deployment has Been Allowed for a Given Time, as Recited in the
`Challenged Claims.
`
`As indicated above, claim 17 of the ’007 Patent requires, inter alia,
`
`“set[ting] a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is above the lock
`
`threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given time.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`8:1-3. Schousek techs no such feature. Accordingly, claim 17 is not
`
`anticipated by Schousek.
`
`As discussed above, Schousek illustrates a fault detection scheme in
`
`Fig. 5B. Faults are detected by comparing the inhibit/no inhibit decisions
`
`reached in five consecutive loops of sensing the total weight detected by the
`
`seat sensors. Ex. 1002 at 5:51 – 6:1; Ex. 2001 at 41:17 – 42:8. If the
`
`inhibit/no inhibit decision is consistent over five consecutive loops, it is
`
`deemed correct and that inhibit/no inhibit decision is forwarded to the air
`
`bag deployment module. Ex. 1002 at 5:51-61. If, however, the five decisions
`
`are not the same, a previous inhibit/no inhibit decision is forwarded to the air
`
`bag deployment module and a fault is registered. Id. at 5:61-64. In other
`
`words, irrespective of the value of the stored “previous decision,” whenever
`
`the seat sensors of Schousek sense a weight such that five consecutive,
`
`common inhibit/no inhibit decisions are reached, that determination is
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`forwarded to the air bag deployment module. Id. at Fig. 5B els. 92-100; Ex.
`
`2001 at 42:9 – 45:6 (“The previous decision that was transmitted to the
`
`airbag module is not evaluated . . . .”).
`
`Thus, the “previous decision” of Schousek will be set to whichever
`
`determination, inhibit / no inhibit, is reached over a set of five preceding,
`
`consistent determinations. Ex. 1002 at 5:55-61. In some instances, this will
`
`be a decision to inhibit (not allow) air bag deployment.
`
`Furthermore, in circumstances where the “previous decision” of
`
`Schousek has been to inhibit air bag deployment, when the next five
`
`determinations of the total weight are such as to permit air bag deployment,
`
`that decision is forwarded to the air bag deployment module without ever
`
`consulting the “previous decision.” Indeed, according to Schousek, the value
`
`of the previous deployment is irrelevant and is not consulted when a current
`
`decision to inhibit or not inhibit air bag deployment is sent to the air bag
`
`deployment module. Id. at Fig. 5B (showing els. 98 and 100 without
`
`consulting a “previous decision”); Ex. 2001 at 44:21 – 45:6:
`
`Q. Just so we're clear, the immediately preceding five
`decisions are compared with each other; correct?
`A. That's right.
`Q. But whatever a stored previous decision from box one
`hundred two might have been, that previous decision is
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`not consulted when transmitting a current decision in box
`one hundred; correct?
`A. That's correct.
`
`Thus, Schousek does not teach “set[ting] a lock flag when the relative
`
`weight parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been
`
`allowed for a given time,” as required by claim 17. Instead, in Schousek, the
`
`“previous decision” is set to indicate the result of five common (i.e., the
`
`same), consecutive determinations of the seat occupant weight, and that
`
`“previous decision” is never consulted when a decision (inhibit / no inhibit)
`
`is sent to the air bag deployment module—i.e., regardless of whether
`
`deployment has been allowed for a given time. The 50 lb weight is not a
`
`threshold at all because regardless of whether the relative weight parameter
`
`is below the 50 lb maximum weight of an occupied infant seat, the same
`
`result (inhibit / do not inhibit) ensues. Thus, claim 17 is not anticipated by
`
`Schousek. Schering Corp., 339 F.3d at 1377.
`
`Claim 21 depends from claim 17. Because each dependent claim
`
`necessarily includes the limitations of its respective parent, independent
`
`claim, 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), claim 21 is not anticipated by Schousek for at
`
`least the reasons specified above.
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`v. Schousek Does Not Teach Clearing a Lock Flag When a Relative
`Weight Parameter is Below an Unlock Threshold for a Time, as
`Recited in the Challenged Claims.
`
`As indicated above, claim 17 of the ’007 Patent requires, inter alia,
`
`“clear[ing] the [lock] flag when the relative weight parameter is below the
`
`unlock threshold for a time.” Ex. 1001 at 8:6-7. Schousek teaches no such
`
`feature. Instead, Schousek states that a decision to inhibit deployment is sent
`
`to the air bag deployment module, and also set as a “previous decision,” not
`
`when a relative weight parameter falls below an unlock threshold for a
`
`period of time, but rather when the decision to inhibit deployment of the
`
`airbag remains unchanged over five consecutive fault monitoring loops. Ex.
`
`1002 at 5:58-61.
`
`As discussed above, a decision to inhibit deployment is made when
`
`the total weight of the seat occupant is determined to be between the
`
`minimum weight of an occupied infant seat and the maximum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat, and the center of weight distribution is forward of a
`
`seat reference line. Id. at 2:12-46; 4:55 – 5:3; 5:23-50; Ex. 2001 at 37:11-17.
`
`Thus, even though the seat is occupied, and the total weight is above the
`
`minimum weight of an occupied infant seat, air bag deployment is inhibited
`
`and that decision is set as the current decision. Ex. 1002 at 5:58-60; and see
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Ex. 2001 at 42:9-15. Thus, claim 17 is not anticipated by Schousek. Schering
`
`Corp., 339 F.3d at 1377.
`
`Claim 21 depends from claim 17. Because each dependent claim
`
`necessarily includes the limitations of its respective parent, independent
`
`claim, 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), claim 21 is not anticipated by Schousek for at
`
`least the reasons specified above.
`
`
`
`vi. Schousek Does Not Allow Deployment of an Airbag When the
`Relative Weight Parameter is Above the First Threshold, as Recited in
`the Challenged Claims.
`
`As indicated above, claim 17 of the ’007 Patent requires, inter alia,
`
`“allow[ing] deployment [of the air bag] when the relative weight parameter
`
`is above the first threshold.” Ex. 1001 at 7:65-66 (emphasis added).
`
`Schousek techs no such feature. Accordingly, claim 17 is not anticipated by
`
`Schousek.
`
`It is undisputed that in Schousek even though the total weight is
`
`greater than the minimum weight of an occupied infant seat (which
`
`Petitioner contends is the recited “first threshold”), air bag deployment is
`
`prohibited if the total weight is less than the maximum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat. For example, in such circumstances air bag deployment
`
`will depend on factors such as the legal requirements of where the vehicle is
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`operated and/or whether the center of weight distribution is forward or aft of
`
`a seat reference line. Ex. 1002 at 2:12-46; 4:55 – 5:3; 5:23-50; Ex. 2001 at
`
`36:14 – 37:6. Thus, Schuosek does not teach allowing deployment when the
`
`relative weight parameter is above the first threshold. Instead, deployment in
`
`such circumstances depends on a host of other facts, some not even related
`
`to weight. In contrast, claim 17 requires “allow[in
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
