UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`
`
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00292
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`_________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`
`
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00292
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`_________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`II. ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Schousek Allows Deployment When the Weight Is Above the
`First Threshold .................................................................................... 4
`
`Schousek’s Maximum Weight Threshold Corresponds to the
`Lock Threshold, Not the First Threshold ............................................ 9
`
`Schousek Sets a Lock Flag When the Weight Is Above the
`Lock Threshold and Deployment Has Been Allowed For a
`Given Time ........................................................................................ 11
`
`Schousek Clears the Lock Flag When the Weight Is Below the
`Unlock Threshold For a Time ........................................................... 17
`
`III. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 21
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Toyota Motor Corporation (“Toyota” or “Petitioner”) respectfully
`
`submits this Reply to the Patent Owner Response (Paper 19) of Signal IP, Inc.
`
`(“Signal” or “Patent Owner”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board should find that claims 17 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`are anticipated by the Schousek reference (Ex. 1002). In its Institution Decision,
`
`the Board correctly rejected Patent Owner’s arguments that Schousek did not
`
`disclose the disputed claim limitations. Patent Owner’s Response now repeats
`
`these same arguments without addressing the Board’s reasoning in its Institution
`
`Decision. The Board should reject these arguments again, and find the challenged
`
`claims unpatentable because Schousek discloses all the limitations of the claims,
`
`including each of the disputed limitations.
`
`First, Schousek “allow[s] deployment when the relative weight parameter is
`
`above the first threshold” as recited in claim 17 because Schousek allows
`
`deployment when the measured total weight is above the 10 pound minimum
`
`infant seat weight threshold. Patent Owner argues that Schousek does not disclose
`
`this limitation because deployment is allowed above the minimum threshold only if
`
`the center of weight distribution is not forward of the seat reference line. The
`
`Board should reject this argument. As the Board explained in its Institution
`
`Decision, the claim does not prohibit further restrictions on deployment, and it is
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`sufficient that Schousek discloses instances in which deployment is allowed above
`
`the minimum threshold.
`
`Second, the Board should reject Patent Owner’s straw man argument that
`
`Schousek’s 50 pound maximum infant seat weight threshold does not correspond
`
`to the claimed “first threshold” because the argument responds to a contention that
`
`Petitioner never made. As the Board recognized in its Institution Decision,
`
`Petitioner contends that Schousek’s 50 pound threshold corresponds to the claimed
`
`“lock threshold,” not the “first threshold.”
`
`Third, Schousek “set[s] a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is
`
`above the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given time” as
`
`recited in claim 17. Schousek sets a lock flag when it transmits the current
`
`decision to deploy to the airbag module and replaces the previous decision with
`
`that current decision. Patent Owner argues that Schousek does not set a lock flag
`
`when “deployment has been allowed for a given time” because Schousek does not
`
`consult the previous decision previously transmitted to the module in determining
`
`whether to replace that decision with the current decision to deploy. The Board
`
`should reject this argument as off-point because Petitioner’s contention for this
`
`limitation does not depend on Schousek consulting the previous decision
`
`transmitted to the module. Instead, Petitioner contends that Schousek sets a lock
`
`flag when deployment has been allowed for a given time because Schousek
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`transmits the current decision to deploy to the module after five decisions to deploy
`
`have been made over five consecutive cycles during which the total weight has
`
`been above the 50 pound threshold. Patent Owner’s argument does not address
`
`Petitioner’s contention.
`
`Fourth, Schousek “clear[s] the flag when the relative weight parameter is
`
`below the unlock threshold for a time” as recited in claim 17. Schousek clears the
`
`lock flag when it transmits the current decision to not deploy to the module and
`
`replaces the previous decision to deploy. Patent Owner argues that Schousek does
`
`not clear the flag “when the relative weight parameter is below the unlock
`
`threshold for a time” because there is a case where Schousek transmits the current
`
`decision not to deploy to the module when the weight is above the minimum
`
`threshold. The Board correctly rejected this argument in its Institution Decision
`
`because there is another case where Schousek inhibits deployment when the
`
`relative weight parameter is below the unlock threshold. Specifically, Schousek
`
`transmits the current decision not to deploy to the module and replaces the
`
`previous decision with that current decision after the total weight has been below
`
`the 10 pound threshold for five consecutive cycles and five consecutive decisions
`
`to not deploy have been made. This is the case on which Petitioner relies, but
`
`Patent Owner’s argument does not address this case.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`As explained below, Schousek discloses each of the limitations of claim 17
`
`that Patent Owner disputes:
`
`(a)
`
`“allow deployment when the relative weight parameter is above the
`
`first threshold”;
`
`(b)
`
`“set a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is above the lock
`
`threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given time”; and
`
`(c)
`
`“clear the flag when the relative weight parameter is below the unlock
`
`threshold for a time.”
`
`Patent Owner Response (Paper 19) at 14–24.1 Patent Owner’s arguments in its
`
`Patent Owner Response that Schousek does not disclose these limitations merely
`
`recycle the same arguments it made in its Preliminary Response, which the Board
`
`correctly rejected in its Institution Decision. The Board should reject these
`
`arguments again, and find that claims 17 and 21 are anticipated by Schousek.
`
`A.
`
`Schousek Allows Deployment When the Weight Is Above the
`First Threshold
`
`As explained in the Petition and below, Schousek “allow[s] deployment
`
`when the relative weight parameter is above the first threshold” as recited in claim
`
`
`1 Patent Owner does not dispute that Schousek discloses all the other limitations of
`
`claim 17 and dependent claim 21. Id.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`17. The 10 pound minimum infant seat weight threshold of Schousek corresponds
`
`to the claimed “first threshold,” and Schousek allows deployment if the measured
`
`total weight is above this minimum threshold. Specifically, in box 76 of Figure 5A
`
`(shown below), the total weight is compared to the minimum weight threshold. If
`
`the weight is greater than the threshold, the algorithm proceeds to box 80 and then
`
`box 82, where it is determined whether the center of weight distribution is forward
`
`of the reference line. If it is not, the decision to deploy is made in box 86, and the
`
`algorithm proceeds to Figure 5B.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Schousek, col. 5, ll. 42–50, Fig. 5A (76, 80, 82, 86); Petition (Paper 7) at 16–17,
`
`21–22, 26–27; Declaration of Scott Andrews (Ex. 1007) at 17–18, 26–27;
`
`Deposition of Scott Andrews (Ex. 2001) at 36:14–38:10, 49:3–17.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Schousek does not allow deployment when the
`
`weight is above the first threshold because of the additional requirement that the
`
`center of weight distribution must not be forward of the reference line. Patent
`
`Owner argues that this claim limitation requires deployment to be allowed in all
`
`cases where the weight is above the first threshold, and that no additional
`
`requirements for deployment can exist. Patent Owner Response at 14–16, 23–24.
`
`Patent Owner’s argument is incorrect because it imposes additional
`
`restrictions that are not in the claim. The claim merely requires that deployment be
`
`allowed when the weight is above the first threshold. Schousek satisfies this
`
`requirement because it discloses a case in which deployment is allowed when the
`
`weight is above the first threshold. Specifically, Schousek makes the decision to
`
`deploy in box 86 if the measured total weight is above the minimum weight
`
`threshold in box 76 and the center of weight distribution is not forward of the
`
`reference line in box 82. Schousek, col. 5, ll. 42–50, Fig. 5A (76, 80, 82, 86). It
`
`does not matter that there is another case where Schousek inhibits deployment
`
`even though the measured total weight is above that threshold, i.e., in box 84 when
`
`the center of weight distribution is at or forward of the reference line in box 82.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., col. 5, ll. 42–50, Fig. 5A (76, 80, 82, 84). It is sufficient that Schousek
`
`discloses a case that satisfies this limitation, even if it also discloses another case
`
`that does not.
`
`The Board made this clear in its Institution Decision, when it rejected this
`
`argument in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response:
`
`Patent Owner responds that “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’” because Schousek
`additionally requires that the center of weight distribution is not
`forward of a reference line to permit air bag deployment. Prelim.
`Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 1002, 5:39–50). Patent Owner’s argument is
`unpersuasive because, as Patent Owner appears to acknowledge (see
`id.), Schousek discloses instances where airbag deployment is
`permitted when the total weight parameter is above the minimum
`weight threshold (see Ex. 1002, 5:42–50 (discussing circumstances
`where airbag deployment is allowed when total weight parameter is
`between the minimum and maximum weight thresholds)). Patent
`Owner’s argument that the claim somehow prohibits further
`restrictions on airbag deployment (see Prelim. Resp. 12) is not
`supported by the claim language, and Patent Owner fails to identify
`anything else in the record that imposes such a restriction.
`
`Institution Decision (Paper 16) at 8–9 (emphasis in original).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner does not address the Board’s reasoning on this point in its
`
`Patent Owner Response. Instead, it simply repeats the same argument it made in
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`its Preliminary Response, which the Board correctly rejected. Id.; Patent Owner
`
`Response at 14–16; Preliminary Response (Paper 11) at 11–12. The Board should
`
`reject this argument again for the same reasons, as discussed above.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner also restates the same argument slightly differently (under a
`
`separate heading) later in its Response. Patent Owner Response at 23–24. It
`
`argues that Schousek does not allow deployment when the relative weight
`
`parameter is above the first threshold because deployment between the minimum
`
`and maximum weight thresholds in Schousek “will depend 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. The substance of
`
`this argument is identical to the argument discussed above, which the Board
`
`correctly rejected in its Institution Decision. Institution Decision at 9.2 The Board
`
`should reject the restated version of this argument for the same reasons.3
`
`2 Patent Owner’s assertion that deployment depends on “the legal requirements of
`
`where the vehicle is operated” distorts Schousek’s disclosure. Schousek merely
`
`states that legal requirements may dictate the “desired results” and cites as an
`
`example that “[t]ypically, the air bag deployment will be prevented at least in the
`
`case of an occupied rear facing infant seat.” Schousek, col. 2, ll. 40–47.
`
`3 Patent Owner also incorrectly asserts that “[i]t is undisputed that in Schousek
`
`even though the total weight is greater than the minimum weight of an occupied
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Schousek’s Maximum Weight Threshold Corresponds to the
`Lock Threshold, Not the First Threshold
`
`As explained above, Petitioner contends that the 10 pound minimum weight
`
`threshold of Schousek corresponds to the “first threshold” in claim 17. And
`
`Petitioner contends that the 50 pound maximum infant seat weight threshold of
`
`Schousek corresponds to the “lock threshold” that is “above the first threshold” in
`
`claim 17. Both the Petition and the supporting expert declaration of Scott Andrews
`
`made these contentions perfectly clear. Petition at 21–24; Andrews Declaration at
`
`26–29. Mr. Andrews also made this clear at his deposition. Andrews Deposition
`
`at 50:17–52:9.
`
`Yet in both its Preliminary Response and its Patent Owner Response, Patent
`
`Owner argues that Petitioner “cannot be heard to contend” that the 50 pound
`
`maximum weight threshold in Schousek corresponds to the claimed “first
`
`threshold” (because there is no higher threshold in Schousek that could correspond
`
`
`infant seat . . . air bag deployment is prohibited if the total weight is less than the
`
`maximum weight of an occupied infant seat.” Patent Owner Response at 23. This
`
`statement is incorrect because, as explained above, Schousek allows deployment if
`
`the weight is between the minimum and maximum weight thresholds and the
`
`center of weight distribution is not forward of the reference line. Schousek, col. 5,
`
`ll. 42–50, Fig. 5A (76, 80, 82, 86).
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`to the claimed “lock threshold”). Preliminary Response at 13–15; Patent Owner
`
`Response at 16–18. This argument is misleading because it responds to a
`
`purported argument that Petitioner never made. Petitioner contends that the 50
`
`pound maximum weight threshold in Schousek corresponds to the lock threshold,
`
`not the first threshold.
`
`In its Institution Decision, the Board understood this and correctly rejected
`
`this argument in the Preliminary Response on the ground that the argument
`
`addressed a contention that Petitioner did not make:
`
`Patent Owner additionally contends that “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.” [Preliminary
`Response] at 13. This is also unpersuasive because, as noted above,
`Petitioner contends that Schousek’s maximum weight threshold
`corresponds to the “lock threshold” recited in claim 17, not the “first
`threshold.” See Pet. at 21–23.
`
`Institution Decision at 9.
`
`
`
`Despite the Board’s decision and Mr. Andrews’ subsequent deposition
`
`testimony cited above, Patent Owner repeats this straw man argument in its Patent
`
`Owner Response. Patent Owner Response at 16–18. The Board correctly rejected
`
`this argument in its Institution Decision, and it should do so again.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Schousek Sets a Lock Flag When the Weight Is Above the Lock
`Threshold and Deployment Has Been Allowed For a Given Time
`
`As explained in the Petition and below, Schousek “set[s] a lock flag when
`
`the relative weight parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been
`
`allowed for a given time” as recited in claim 17. The 50 pound maximum weight
`
`threshold of Schousek corresponds to the “lock threshold” that is “above the first
`
`threshold” in claim 17, and Schousek sets a lock flag when the measured total
`
`weight is above this threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given time.
`
`In particular, Schousek sets a lock flag when it transmits the current decision
`
`to deploy to the airbag (SIR) module in box 100 of Figure 5B (shown below), and
`
`replaces the previous decision with that current decision to deploy in box 102.
`
`This lock flag is set “when the relative weight parameter is above the lock
`
`threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given time” because Schousek
`
`transmits the current decision to deploy to the module and replaces the previous
`
`decision after the measured total weight has been above the maximum weight
`
`threshold in box 72 of Figure 5A (shown below) for five consecutive cycles, and it
`
`has been determined in box 98 that five consecutive decisions to deploy have been
`
`made in box 74. This sequence sets a “lock flag” because the current decision to
`
`deploy is maintained, i.e., locked in place, in box 106, until a later decision to not
`
`deploy is transmitted to the module to replace the decision to deploy, which will
`
`occur only if five consecutive decisions to not deploy are made in five later cycles.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Schousek, col. 5, ll. 32–35, col. 5, l. 51 to col. 6, l. 5, Fig. 5A (72, 74), Fig. 5B (90,
`
`92, 98, 100, 102, 106); Petition at 14–18, 21–23, 27–29; Andrews Declaration at
`
`16–22, 26–28; Andrews Deposition at 35:23–36:7, 39:1–42:15, 52:10–55:13.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Schousek does not disclose this claim limitation
`
`because Schousek does not “consult” the previous decision that was previously
`
`transmitted to the module when it determines whether to replace that decision with
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`the current decision to deploy. Patent Owner Response at 19–21. This argument is
`
`not entirely clear, but Petitioner understands Patent Owner to be arguing that this
`
`failure to consult the previous decision means that Schousek does not set a lock
`
`flag when “deployment has been allowed for a given time.” Id. at 21 (arguing that
`
`Schousek transmits the current decision to the airbag module “regardless of
`
`whether deployment has been allowed for a given time”).
`
`Patent Owner’s argument is off-point because it does not respond to
`
`Petitioner’s contention and Mr. Andrews’ evidence. Petitioner’s contention does
`
`not depend on Schousek consulting the previous decision that was previously
`
`transmitted to the module. Petitioner instead contends that Schousek sets a lock
`
`flag when “deployment has been allowed for a given time” because Schousek
`
`transmits the current decision to deploy to the module in box 100 and replaces the
`
`previous decision with that current decision in box 102 after the decision to deploy
`
`has been made in box 74 for five consecutive cycles. In other words, the “given
`
`time” during which “deployment has been allowed” is the duration of the five
`
`consecutive cycles during which the decision to deploy was made in box 74.4
`
`Schousek, col. 5, ll. 32–35, col. 5, l. 51 to col. 6, l. 5, Fig. 5A (72, 74), Fig. 5B (90,
`
`4 Schousek discloses that the duration of five cycles would be five seconds.
`
`Schousek, col. 2, ll. 48–56, col. 5, ll. 24–27, col. 6, ll. 2–5, Fig. 5A (60, 62);
`
`Andrews Declaration at 28.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`92, 98, 100, 102, 106); Petition at 14–18, 21–23, 27–29; Andrews Declaration at
`
`16–22, 26–28; Andrews Deposition at 52:16–22, 53:9–17, 54:18–55:13.
`
`Specifically, in box 72 the measured total weight is compared to the
`
`maximum weight threshold. If the weight is greater than the threshold, the
`
`decision to deploy is made in box 74. That deployment decision is stored in an
`
`array in box 90. In box 92, it is determined whether there are fewer than five
`
`decisions in the array. If there are, the decision counter in box 94 is incremented,
`
`and the algorithm returns to Figure 5A to make a new deployment decision. Once
`
`five decisions are made in five consecutive cycles, the algorithm proceeds from
`
`box 92 to box 96 to box 98, where it is determined whether all five decisions in the
`
`array are the same, i.e., whether all five decisions are to deploy or to not deploy. If
`
`all five decisions are the same, in box 100 that decision is transmitted as the
`
`current decision to the airbag module, and in box 102 that current decision replaces
`
`the previous decision that was previously transmitted to the module. If the five
`
`decisions in the array are not the same in box 98, the previous decision transmitted
`
`to the module is not replaced but instead is maintained as the current decision in
`
`box 106. Schousek, col. 5, ll. 32–35, col. 5, l. 51 to col. 6, l. 5, Fig. 5A (72, 74),
`
`Fig. 5B (90, 92, 98, 100, 102, 106); Petition at 16–18, 21–23, 27–29; Andrews
`
`Declaration at 16–22, 26–28; Andrews Deposition at 35:23–36:7, 39:1–42:15,
`
`52:10–55:13.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Therefore, if the measured total weight is above the maximum weight
`
`threshold in box 72 for five consecutive cycles, five consecutive decisions to
`
`deploy are made in box 74 and stored in the array in box 90. Because all five
`
`decisions in the array are the same in box 98, the current decision to deploy is
`
`transmitted to the airbag module in box 100 and replaces the previous decision in
`
`box 102. That current decision to deploy will be maintained, i.e., locked in place,
`
`in box 106, until five consecutive decisions to not deploy are made and stored in
`
`the array, even if the total measured weight dips below the maximum weight
`
`threshold for fewer than five cycles. Schousek, col. 5, ll. 32–35, col. 5, l. 51 to col.
`
`6, l. 5, Fig. 5A (72, 74), Fig. 5B (90, 92, 98, 100, 102, 106); Petition at 16–18, 21–
`
`23, 27–29; Andrews Declaration at 16–22, 26–28; Andrews Deposition at 35:23–
`
`36:7, 39:1–42:15, 52:10–55:13.
`
`In view of the foregoing, Schousek “set[s] a lock flag” when it transmits the
`
`current decision to deploy to the airbag module in box 100 and replaces the
`
`previous decision in box 102. This lock flag is set “when the relative weight
`
`parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given
`
`time” because Schousek transmits the current decision to deploy to the module and
`
`replaces the previous decision after five consecutive decisions to deploy have been
`
`made in box 74 over five consecutive cycles during which the measured total
`
`weight has been above the maximum weight threshold in box 72. Finally, this
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`sequence sets a “lock flag” because the current decision to deploy is maintained,
`
`i.e., locked in place, in box 106, until a later decision to not deploy is transmitted to
`
`the module to replace the decision to deploy, which will occur only if five
`
`consecutive decisions to not deploy are made in five later cycles.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Andrews, explained this at his deposition:
`
`Schousek’s 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 that’s because deployment has – the decision to allow
`deployment has been made for five consecutive times.
`. . .
`[D]eployment is allowed or has been allowed for a given time because
`in box seventy-two it’s been allowed for five consecutive cycles at
`which time, when you set the lock flag, you are replacing the prior
`decision that was transmitted with the current decision that has been
`present for five cycles.
`
`. . .
`And so in Schousek, the first of those criteria is met in figure 5A in
`box seventy-two and seventy-four where we check the total weight
`against the maximum threshold and we reach a deployment allowance
`decision. So a deployment is allowed, it’s permitted at that point,
`although that deployment decision has not been committed to the
`airbag. And then in box ninety-eight – actually in boxes ninety
`through ninety-eight we accumulate five consecutive decisions. And
`if at the conclusion of five decisions they are all the same, we can say
`that airbag deployment has been allowed for some time at which point
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`we then set the lock by changing the prior decision that had been
`transmitted to the current decision that has been transmitted.
`
`Andrews Deposition at 52:16–22, 53:9–17, 54:18–55:13.
`
`In sum, Petitioner’s contention and Mr. Andrews’ evidence on this issue do
`
`not depend on Schousek consulting the previous decision that was previously
`
`transmitted to the module. Therefore, Patent Owner’s argument that Schousek’s
`
`failure to consult the previous decision means that Schousek does not set a lock
`
`flag when “deployment has been allowed for a given time” is off point, and
`
`Petitioner’s contention and Mr. Andrews’ evidence stand unrebutted. The Board
`
`should reject Patent Owner’s argument, and find that Schousek discloses this
`
`limitation.
`
`D.
`
`Schousek Clears the Lock Flag When the Weight Is Below the
`Unlock Threshold For a Time
`
`Finally, as explained in the Petition and below, Schousek “clear[s] the flag
`
`when the relative weight parameter is below the unlock threshold for a time” as
`
`recited in claim 17. The 10 pound minimum weight threshold of Schousek
`
`corresponds to the “unlock threshold” that is “at a level indicative of an empty
`
`seat” in claim 17, and Schousek clears the lock flag when the measured total
`
`weight has been below this threshold for a time.
`
`Specifically, Schousek clears the lock flag when it transmits the current
`
`decision to not deploy to the airbag module in box 100 and replaces the previous
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`decision to deploy with that current decision to not deploy in box 102. The flag is
`
`cleared “when the relative weight parameter is below the unlock threshold for a
`
`time” because Schousek transmits the current decision to the module and replaces
`
`the previous decision after the measured total weight has been below the minimum
`
`weight threshold in box 76 for five consecutive cycles, and five consecutive
`
`decisions to not deploy have been made in box 78. Schousek, col. 5, ll. 36–39, col.
`
`5, l. 51 to col. 6, l. 5, Fig. 5A (76, 78), Fig. 5B (90, 92, 98, 100, 102); Petition at
`
`16–18, 21, 23–24, 28; Andrews Declaration at 16–22, 26, 28–29; Andrews
`
`Deposition at 35:15–22.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Schousek does not disclose this claim limitation
`
`because Schousek inhibits deployment if the measured total weight is between the
`
`minimum and maximum thresholds and the center of weight distribution is forward
`
`of the reference line. Therefore, according to Patent Owner, Schousek inhibits
`
`deployment when the total weight is above the minimum weight threshold,
`
`whereas this limitation requires the lock flag to be cleared when the relative weight
`
`parameter is below the unlock threshold. Patent Owner Response at 22–23.
`
`Patent Owner’s argument ignores the fact that Schousek also inhibits
`
`deployment when the total weight is below the minimum weight threshold for a
`
`time. As explained in the Petition and in this section of the reply, Schousek clears
`
`the lock flag when it changes the deployment decision transmitted to the airbag
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`module from deploy to not deploy after the measured total weight has been below
`
`the minimum weight threshold in box 76, and the decision to not deploy has been
`
`made in box 78, for five consecutive cycles.
`
`Specifically, in box 76 the measured total weight is compared to the
`
`minimum weight threshold. If the weight is below the threshold, the decision to
`
`not deploy is made in box 78. If the weight is below the threshold in box 76 for
`
`five consecutive cycles, five consecutive decisions to not deploy are made in box
`
`78 and stored in the array in box 90. Because all five decisions in the array are the
`
`same in box 98, the current decision to not deploy is transmitted to the airbag
`
`module in box 100 and replaces the previous decision to deploy in box 102.
`
`Schousek, col. 5, ll. 36–39, col. 5, l. 51 to col. 6, l. 5, Fig. 5A (76, 78), Fig. 5B (90,
`
`92, 98, 100, 102); Petition at 16–18, 21, 23–24, 28; Andrews Declaration at 16–22,
`
`26, 28–29; Andrews Deposition at 35:15–22.
`
`Therefore, Schousek “clear[s] the flag” when it transmits the current
`
`decision to not deploy to the airbag module in box 100 and replaces the previous
`
`decision to deploy in box 102. The flag is cleared “when the relative weight
`
`parameter is below the unlock threshold for a time” because Schousek transmits
`
`the current decision and replaces the previous decision after the measured total
`
`weight has been below the minimum weight threshold in box 76 for five
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`consecutive cycles and five consecutive decisions to not deploy have been made in
`
`box 78.
`
`Patent Owner’s argument ignores this case where Schousek inhibits
`
`deployment when the total weight is below the minimum weight threshold for a
`
`time. The Board recognized this in its Institution Decision, when it rejected the
`
`same argument in the Preliminary Response. After the Board noted that “[a]s for
`
`‘clear[ing] the lock flag,’ Patent Owner’s contentions are unclear,” the Board
`
`explained that:
`
`Patent Owner fails to explain persuasively . . . why “clear[ing] the
`lock flag” is not disclosed by Schousek’s fault detection procedure
`when the “previous decision” is a decision to allow airbag
`deployment, and five consecutive subsequent decisions to inhibit
`deployment occur, resulting in the “previous decision” being set to
`inhibit airbag deployment (i.e., clearing the “previous decision”
`setting of allow airbag deployment). Ex. 1002, 5:53–61.
`
`Institution Decision at 10.
`
`Patent Owner does not address the Board’s reasoning on this point in its
`
`Patent Owner Response. Instead, it repeats the same argument it made in its
`
`Preliminary Response, which the Board correctly rejected. Id.; Patent Owner
`
`Response at 22–23; Preliminary Response at 18–19. The Board should reject this
`
`argument again for the same reasons, as discussed above.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board find claims 17 and 21 of the
`
`’007 patent unpatentable as anticipated by Schousek under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). As
`
`explained above, in the Petition, and in Mr. Andrews’ declaration and deposition
`
`testimony, Schousek discloses all the limitations of claims 17 and 21, including the
`
`limitations disputed by Patent Owner. Patent Owner’s arguments merely recycle
`
`the arguments that it made in its Preliminary Response, which the Board correctly
`
`rejected in its Institution Decision. The Board should reject Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments again, and find the challenged claims unpatentable.
`
`
`Dated: December 2, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/ Mark A. Chapman /
`John Flock (Reg. No. 39,670)
`George E. Badenoch (Reg. No. 25,825)
`Mark A. Chapman (admitted pro hac vice)
`ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`Fax: (212) 425-5288
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), the undersigned certifies that this Reply
`
`complies with the type-volume limitation of 5,600 words set forth in 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.24(c). The word count application of the word processing program used to
`
`prepare this Reply indicates that the Reply contains 4,717 words, excluding the
`
`parts of the Reply exempted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(c).
`
`/ Mark A. Chapman /
`Mark A. Chapman (admitted pro hac vice)
`ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`Fax: (212) 425-5288
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`Dated: December 2, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4), that a
`
`true and correct copy of Petitioner’s Reply was served on the Patent Owner’s
`
`attorneys of record via email, on December 2, 2016, at the following addresses:
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi (Reg. No. 41,402)
`Holly J. Atkinson (Reg. No. 69,934)
`Jason A. LaBerteaux (Reg. No. 65,724)
`Ascenda Law Group, PC
`333 W San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`holly.atkinson@ascendalaw.com
`jason.laberteaux@ascendalaw.com
`patents@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
`Dated: December 2, 2016
`
`/ Mark A. Chapman /
`Mark A. Ch
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
