UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC. and
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,012,007
`Issue Date: January 4, 2000
`Title: OCCUPANT DETECTION METHOD AND
`APPARTUS FOR AIR BAG SYSTEM
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,012,007
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`Case No. IPR 2016-00292
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ................................................. 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .............................................. 1
`C.
`Counsel & Service Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4)) ............. 3
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)...................................................... 3
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R. §
`42.104) ................................................................................................................. 4
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ..................................... 4
`B.
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Relief
`Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1)) ..................................................... 4
`Effective Priority Date of the ’007 Patent ............................................. 5
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) .................................... 7
`
`C.
`D.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’007 PATENT ............................................................... 9
`A. Overview of the ’007 Patent .................................................................. 9
`B.
`The ’007 Patent’s Prosecution History ............................................... 10
`Prior Inter Partes Review Petitions .................................................... 11
`C.
`
`V.
`
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE ’007 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ...................... 12
`A. Ground 1: Claims 17 and 21 are Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. §
`102(b) by Schousek ............................................................................. 12
`Ground 2: Claims 17 and 21 are Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over Schousek in view of Fu ................................................... 30
`Purported Secondary Considerations .................................................. 44
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 44
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1001
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`
`Exhibit 1007
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 to Fortune et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327 to Schousek
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,848,661 to Fu
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 to Cashler
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 to Fortune et
`al.
`
`Order RE Claim Construction from Signal IP v.
`American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02454
`(C.D. Cal.)
`
`Expert Declaration of Scott Andrews
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. Part 42, Toyota Motor
`
`Corporation (“Toyota” or “Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter partes review of
`
`claims 17 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 (“the ’007 patent”), filed on June 3,
`
`1997, and issued on January 4, 2000, to Duane Donald FORTUNE et al., and
`
`currently assigned to Signal IP Inc. (“Signal” or “Patent Owner”) according to the
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) assignment records. There is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one claim
`
`challenged in this Petition.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`Petitioner, Toyota, and its corporate subsidiaries Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A.,
`
`Inc. and Toyota Motor North America, Inc. are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`The ’007 patent has been asserted by the Patent Owner in the following
`
`litigations: Signal IP, Inc. v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. et al., No. 2:15-cv-
`
`05162 (C.D. Cal.) (“C.D. Cal. Signal IP v. Toyota litigation”); Signal IP, Inc. v.
`
`Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:15-cv-01085 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v.
`
`Fiat U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 2: 14-cv-13864 (E.D. Mich., formerly C.D. Cal.
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-03105); Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2:14-
`
`cv-13729 (E.D. Mich., formerly C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:14-cv-03106); Signal IP,
`
`Inc. v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-03114 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. d/b/a Audi of America, Inc.
`
`et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-03113 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Jaguar Land Rover
`
`North America, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-03108 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Volvo
`
`Cars of North America, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-03107 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc.
`
`v. BMW of North America, LLC et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-03111 (C.D. Cal.); Signal
`
`IP, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al., Case No. 2-14-cv- 03109 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02962 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Subaru of America, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02963 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Suzuki Motor of America, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-00607 (C.D.
`
`Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Kia Motors America, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02457 (C.D.
`
`Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-
`
`02454 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Case No. 8:14-
`
`cv-00491 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Case No.
`
`2:14-cv-02459 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Motors North America,
`
`Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-00497 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Motors
`
`North America, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02462 (C.D. Cal.).
`
`The ’007 was previously asserted in Takata Seat Belts In v. Delphi
`
`Automotive Sys, et al., Case No. 5-04-cv-00464 (W.D. Tex.), which is no longer
`
`pending.
`
` The ʼ007 patent is subject to at least the following IPR proceedings:
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01004 (instituted), IPR2015-01116 (not instituted), IPR2016-00113
`
`(awaiting institution decision), and IPR2016-00115 (awaiting institution decision).
`
`C. Counsel & Service Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4))
`Lead Counsel: A. Antony Pfeffer (Reg. No. 43,857)
`
`Back-up Counsel: George E. Badenoch (Reg. No. 25,825) and John Flock (Reg.
`
`No. 39,670). Petitioner also intends to request authorization to file a motion for K.
`
`Patrick Herman to appear pro hac vice as a further backup counsel. Mr. Herman is
`
`a litigation attorney experienced in patent cases, and is admitted to practice law in
`
`New York, and in several United States District Courts and Courts of Appeal. Mr.
`
`Herman has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue and
`
`represents Petitioner in the related C.D. Cal. Signal IP v. Toyota litigation,
`
`identified above.
`
`Electronic Service Information: ptab@kenyon.com, apfeffer@kenyon.com,
`
`gbadenoch@kenyon.com, jflock@kenyon.com, pherman@kenyon.com.
`
`Post and Delivery: Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, One Broadway, New York, NY 10004
`
`Telephone: 212-425-7200
`
`Facsimile: 212-425-5288
`
`II.
`
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`Petitioner authorizes the Patent and Trademark Office to charge Deposit
`
`Account No. 11-0600 for the fees set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review, and further authorizes payment for any additional fees to be
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`
`
`charged to this Deposit Account.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R. §
`42.104)
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that the patent for which review is sought, the ’007 patent
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001), is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent’s claims on
`
`the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Relief
`Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1))
`
`
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of and challenges claims 17 and 21 of
`
`the ’007 patent on the grounds set forth in the table below, and requests that each
`
`of the claims be found unpatentable. Cancellation of the claims is requested. This
`
`petition explains in detail the reasons why claims 17 and 21 are unpatentable under
`
`the relevant statutory grounds, and includes an identification of where each
`
`element is found in the prior art, and the relevance of each of the prior art
`
`references. Detailed claim charts are also provided and additional explanation and
`
`support for each ground of challenge is set forth in the attached Declaration of
`
`Scott Andrews (Ex. 1007).
`
`Ground
`
`’007 Claims
`
`Basis for Challenge
`
`Ground 1 Claims 17, 21
`
`Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by U.S.
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 5,474,327 (“Schousek”) (Ex. 1002)
`
`Ground 2 Claims 17, 21
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Schousek in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,848,661
`
`(“Fu”) (Ex. 1003)
`
`The ’007 patent was filed on June 3, 1997 and issued on Jan. 4, 2000. The
`
`’007 patent identifies itself as a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`(“the ’375 patent”) (Ex. 1004), which was filed on Dec. 1, 1995. As explained in
`
`Section III.C below, however, the claims of the ’007 patent are not supported by
`
`the ’375 patent. Thus, the ’007 patent is entitled only to its own June 3, 1997 filing
`
`date.
`
`Schousek (Ex. 1002) issued on Dec. 12, 1995 and was filed Jan. 10, 1995,
`
`and therefore qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Fu (Ex. 1003) issued on Dec. 15, 1998 and was filed on Oct. 22, 1996, and
`
`therefore qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`C.
`
`Effective Priority Date of the ’007 Patent
`
`While the ’007 patent was filed on June 3, 1997, it is a continuation-in-part
`
`of the ’375 patent, filed on Dec. 1, 1995. (Ex. 1001, ’007 patent at Cover Page).
`
`When the application that led to the ’007 patent was originally filed, it did not
`
`include a priority claim to the ’375 patent. (See Ex. 1005, at pp. 4-17, 51). This
`
`led to the claims being rejected as obvious over the earlier filed ’375 patent. (Ex.
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`
`
`1005, at pp. 41-44). In response to this rejection, the applicant amended the
`
`application to indicate that it was a continuation-in-part of the ’375 patent. (Ex.
`
`1005, at pp. 48-51.) Further, the applicant argued that the pending claims “recite
`
`subject matter that is neither shown nor suggested” in the ’375 patent. (Id. at p.
`
`50). According to the applicant, the ’375 patent does not disclose the
`
`“steps/functions” of “establish[ing] a lock threshold above the first threshold,”
`
`“set[ting] a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is above the lock
`
`threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given time,” “clear[ing] the flag
`
`when the relative weight parameter is below the unlock threshold for a time,” and
`
`“allow[ing] deployment while the lock flag is set.” (See id. at p. 51). “[T]hese
`
`steps/functions” purportedly “enhance” the claimed subject matter by “addressing
`
`dynamic operating conditions not even recognized in the [’375] patent,” and thus,
`
`the ’375 patent “cannot obviate the subject matter of” the claims. (Id.). In other
`
`words, by the applicant’s own admission during prosecution, the claims of the ’007
`
`patent are not disclosed or rendered obvious by the ’375 patent and the ’007 patent
`
`is not entitled to the earlier filing date of the ’375 patent. Instead, they are only
`
`entitled to a June 3, 1997 filing date.
`
`Consistent with these prosecution admissions, the ’007 patent specification
`
`makes no mention at all of “lock threshold[s],” “lock flag[s],” “unlock
`
`threshold[s],” or how lock/unlock thresholds and lock flags can be used to enable
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`
`
`or inhibit airbag deployment. (See generally Ex. 1004, ’375 patent.) Thus, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would agree that the ’007 patent is not entitled to claim the
`
`benefit of the ’375 patent’s filing date. (Ex. 1007, Andrews Dec. at ¶ 34).
`
`D. Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3))
`A claim subject to inter partes review is given its “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” (37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b).) But, “the Board’s review of the claims of an expired patent is
`
`similar to that of a district court’s review.” In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012). The ’007 patent expired December 1, 2015. Thus, Toyota has
`
`applied the claim construction standard summarized in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`
`F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).1
`
`On April 17, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
`
`California issued a claim construction order that addressed, among other things, the
`
`’007 patent. (See Ex. 1006, Order RE Claim Construction from Signal IP v.
`
`American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02454 (C.D. Cal.).) The meaning
`
`
`1 Toyota notes that application of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard
`
`would not produce a different result. All of the constructions set forth in this
`
`section are at least consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation, and the
`
`prior art discussed in this petition discloses all the limitations of claim 17 and 21 of
`
`the ’007 patent regardless of which claim construction standard is applied.
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`
`
`of a number of terms appearing in claim 17 were disputed by the parties, and were
`
`addressed by the Court.
`
`The district court first concluded that certain disputed terms, including “seat
`
`sensor,” “lock flag,” “flag,” “for a time,” “for a given time,” “set a lock flag
`
`when,” were not in need of construction . (Id. at pp. 48-53, 63-65.)
`
`Similarly, the district court considered the “means for inhibiting and
`
`allowing deployment” language in the preamble of claim 17. With respect to this
`
`language, the district held that “Section 112 ¶ 6 does not apply.” (Id. at p. 73.)
`
`These district court constructions (or decisions that no construction is
`
`necessary) are at least consistent with the ’007 patent’s claims, specification, and
`
`prosecution history and have thus been utilized when comparing the prior art to the
`
`claims the ’007 patent in this Petition.
`
`The district court also construed the term “[a] level indicative of an empty
`
`seat” and construed this term to mean “a force/pressure measurement of zero or
`
`substantially zero weight on the seat.” (Id. at pp. 65-67.) Petitioner believes,
`
`however, that this particular claim limitation does not require explicit construction
`
`and can instead be instead afforded its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`In addition to the above, the district court found claim 17 indefinite due to its
`
`inclusion of the phrase “relative weight parameter.” (Id. at pp. 60-63.) But, the
`
`district court went on to find that “claims 21 and 22 adequately describe the
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`
`
`relative weight parameter, and are not indefinite.” (Id. at p. 63.) The Board has
`
`previously stated that it can consider patentability of claim 17 for the purposes of
`
`an inter partes review because “the ‘relative weight parameter,’ recited in claim[] .
`
`. . 17, includes a parameter representing a total weight of an occupant” as set forth
`
`in claim 21. See IPR2015-01004, Paper 11, Institution Decision at 7. Petitioner
`
`agrees, for purposes of this Petition, that the “relative weight parameter” of claim
`
`17 includes at least the “total force detected by all the sensors.”
`
`Beyond these terms, there is no indication in the ’007 patent that any other
`
`terms in claims 17 and 21 should be afforded something other than their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’007 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ’007 Patent
`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.)
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`
`
`The ’007 patent system comprises basic well-known components, including
`
`a microprocessor and off-the-shelf sensors mounted in a seat monitored by the
`
`microprocessor to determine whether to inhibit airbag deployment. (Id. at col. 2, l.
`
`61 – col. 3, l. 20.) According to the ’007 patent, these off-the-shelf sensors are
`
`periodically sampled and decision measures are computed. (Id. at col. 3, ll. 39-43.)
`
`For example, decision measure computations may include “calculating total force
`
`and its threshold, sensor load ratings and measure, [and] long term average of
`
`sensor readings and its threshold.” (Id. at col. 3, ll. 49-52.) An “Adult Lock Flag”
`
`can be set to always allow airbag deployment. (Id. at col. 4, ll. 40-41.) When
`
`determining whether to set the “Adult Lock Flag,” the total force is compared to “a
`
`lock threshold[,] which is above the total force threshold” and “an unlock
`
`threshold[,] which represents an empty seat.” (Id. at col. 4, ll. 41-44.) A lock
`
`timer is used to determine when to set the “Adult Lock Flag.” (Id. at col. 4, ll. 44-
`
`46). And, 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. 46-50.)
`
`The ’007 Patent’s Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The application that eventually issued as the ’007 patent, U.S. App. No.
`
`08/868,338, was filed on June 3, 1997. (See Ex. 1005, at pp. 2-36.) On April 9,
`
`1999, the examiner rejected all the pending claims in view of the ’375 patent. (See
`
`id. at pp. 38-45.) As described above in Section III.C, the applicant responded by
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`
`
`amending the application to claim priority to the ’375 patent while at the same time
`
`distinguishing the claimed subject matter from what is disclosed in the ’375 patent.
`
`(See supra Section III.C.) The claims were then allowed.
`
`C.
`Prior Inter Partes Review Petitions
`The ’007 patent has been the subject of several inter partes review petitions:
`
`Claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 17–21 of the ’007 patent are the subject of an on-going
`
`IPR instituted on October 1, 2015 in response to a petition filed by American
`
`Honda Motor Co., Inc. (See IPR2015-01004, Institution Decision, Paper 11.) IPR
`
`was instituted on the following grounds:
`
` Claims 1–3, 5, 9, 17, 20, and 21 based on anticipation by Schousek;
`
`and
`
` Claims 18 and 19 based on obviousness over Schousek and U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 5,232,243 to Blackburn
`
`(Id. at p. 18.)
`
` Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. also filed a petition seeking institution
`
`of inter partes review in connection with claims 1, 17, and 19-21 of the ’007
`
`patent, but the Board denied the petition on September 29, 2015. (See IPR2015-
`
`01116, Decision Denying Inter Partes Review, Paper 11.) This petition argued
`
`that the claims were obvious over the combination of the ’375 patent and
`
`Schousek. (See id. at p. 2.)
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`
`
`Petitions have also been filed by Nissan North America, Inc. and Kia Motors
`
`America, Inc. (See IPR2016-00113, Petition, Paper 2; IPR2016-00115, Petition,
`
`Paper 1.) Both of these petitions include grounds that are the same as those at
`
`issue in IPR2015-01004. Both petitions are still awaiting an institution decision.
`
`This petition differs from those that have been previously filed in several
`
`ways. For instance, it provides additional details, including both further citations
`
`and a different expert declaration, regarding why Schousek discloses the
`
`limitations required by claims 17 and 21. Further, this petition includes an
`
`additional obviousness grounds that respond to the arguments the Patent Owner
`
`has made to date regarding Schousek.
`
`V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE ’007 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground 1: Claims 17 and 21 are Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. §
`102(b) by Schousek
`
`Claims 17 and 21 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Schousek.
`
`Schousek is referenced in a section of the ’007 patent entitled “Background of the
`
`Invention.” (Ex. 1001, ’007 patent, at col. 1, ll. 31-33.) According to the ’007
`
`patent, Schousek “teach[es] the use of sensors on the top surface of [a vehicle]
`
`seat, just under the seat cover, and algorithms especially for detecting the presence
`
`and orientation of infant seats.” (Id. at col. 1, ll. 40-43.) To accomplish this,
`
`Schousek employs a “microprocessor to evaluate the weight and weight
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`
`
`distribution.” (Id. at col. 1, ll. 35-39.) After the seat occupant is detected,
`
`Schousek’s system can “inhibit[]” airbag “deployment in certain cases.” (Id.)
`
`The ’007 patent goes on to concede these teachings in Schousek are “a
`
`foundation for [the ‘007 patent’s] invention.” (Id. at col. 1, ll. 43-44.) But, ’007
`
`patent then argues that its system purportedly improves on Schousek because it “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. 45-48.)
`
`As detailed in the discussion and claim charts below, and despite the
`
`characterizations of Schousek in the ’007 patent’s specification, Schousek
`
`discloses all the limitations of claims 17 and 21. Schousek, like the ’007 patent, 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 “[t]wo sets of four sensors symmetrically
`
`arranged on either side of a seat centerline … to gather pressure data.” (Id. at col.
`
`2, ll. 17-19; see also Abstract; col. 4, ll. 36-48; Fig. 2.) “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:
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 2.)
`
`Schousek’s system also includes a “microprocessor” that is “is programmed
`
`to sample each sensor.” (Id. at col. 2, ll. 24-25.) Using the sensor inputs, 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 and enable/disable
`
`airbag deployment. (See id. at col. 2, ll. 40-41.)
`
`FIG. 5A provides additional details regarding the occupant classification and
`
`airbag enablement process followed by Schousek’s system:
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 5A.)
`
`As shown in the figure and discussed in Schousek, “the sensors are enabled
`
`and each sensor sampled” at step 64. (Id. at col. 5, ll. 27-28.) After some
`
`calibration calculations, the “force for each sensor” is “summed to obtain a total
`
`force or weight parameter” at step 68. (Id. at col. 5, ll. 28-31.) Then, the “center
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`
`
`of force or weight distribution” is determined at step 70. (Id. at col. 5, ll. 31-32.)
`
`These force/weight parameters are then compared to various thresholds to classify
`
`the occupant and make an airbag deployment decision: “If the total weight
`
`parameter is greater than the maximum infant seat weight … this indicates that a
`
`larger occupant is present and a decision is made to allow deployment.” (Id. at col.
`
`5, ll. 32-35.) This is shown at steps 72 and 74 of Figure 5A. “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….” (Id. at col. 5, ll. 36-39.) This is shown at steps 76 and 78
`
`of Figure 5A. Schousek explains that “the maximum weight of an occupied infant
`
`seat” can be set to “50 pounds,” while the “minimum weight of an occupied infant
`
`seat” can be set to “about 10 pounds.” (Id. at col. 2, ll. 31-33.) The 10 pound
`
`threshold “allow[s for] a range of 5 to 10 pounds for seat weight.” (Id. at col. 4, ll.
`
`64-66.) Thus, Schousek’s system will enable airbag deployment if the total weight
`
`detected by array of sensors in the passenger seat is more than 50 pounds, and
`
`disable airbag deployment if less than 10 pounds is detected.
`
`Schousek goes on to explain that airbag deployment may be enabled in some
`
`cases where the total weight detected by the seat sensors is less than the 50 pound
`
`threshold. In particular, “[i]f the total weight parameter is between” the 50 and 10
`
`pound “threshold the occupant is identified as an occupied infant seat or small
`
`-16-
`
`

`
`
`
`child….” (Id. at col. 5, ll. 42-44.) If the 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….” (Id. at col. 5, ll. 44-46.) This is shown at steps 82 and 84 of Figure
`
`5A. If, however, “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.” (Id. at col. 5, ll. 47-50.) This is shown at steps 82 and
`
`86 of Figure 5A.
`
`Schousek’s system also “monitor[s] for failure by testing consistency of the
`
`decisions.” (Id. at col. 2, ll. 48-50.) The failure monitoring procedure employed
`
`by Schousek is depicted in Figure 5b. In connection with this figure, Schousek
`
`explains that its microprocessor cycles through a loop in the following manner:
`
`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,
`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>.
`
`(Id. at col. 5, ll. 53 – 64.) In other words, Schousek’s system continuously
`
`monitors the occupancy and airbag enablement/inhibition decisions. If the
`
`-17-
`
`

`
`
`
`decision is the same five times in a row, the decision is locked and used to
`
`determine the status of airbag deployment and labeled “previous decision.”
`
`If five consecutive decisions are not the same, the status does not change,
`
`and the locked “previous decision” remains constant and is used again.
`
`According to Schousek, this allows system to ignore and “filter[] out” “an
`
`occasional spurious decision, which may be due to occupant movement or
`
`other instability.” (Id. at col. 6, ll. 2-5.) This is shown in the below
`
`annotated version of Figure 5B:
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`

`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 5B (emphasis added).)
`
`In view of the above, Schousek itself discloses all that is required by claims
`
`17 and 21.
`
`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.” Schousek
`
`discloses this type of system. In particular, Schousek relates to an “[a]n air bag
`
`restraint system” that includes a “seat occupant sensing apparatus.” (Ex. 1002,
`
`Schousek at Abstract.) Input from an array of sensors in the vehicle seat is used to
`
`determine both “total weight” and “center of weight distribution” for purposes of
`
`classifying the occupant sitting on the passenger seat and controlling airbag
`
`deployment in view of the classification. (Id. at col. 2, ll. 25-30, 40-41.)
`
`Schousek’s system enables airbag deployment if the sensed force/weight is above
`
`certain thresholds, including a 10 pound “minimum weight threshold for an
`
`occupied infant seat” if the weight/force is appropriately distributed and a 50
`
`pound “maximum infant seat weight” regardless of distribution. (See id. at col. 2,
`
`ll. 31-33; col. 5, ll. 26-50.)
`
`Claim 17 next requires “seat sensors responding to the weight of an
`
`occupant to produce sensor outputs.” This is disclosed by Schousek. In particular,
`
`Schousek’s occupant sensing system includes an array of pressure sensors located
`
`-19-
`
`

`
`
`
`in the vehicle seat. (Id. at col. 2, ll. 17-19; Fig. 2; see also col. 3, l. 64 – col. 4, l.
`
`11.) Schousek also explains that its system includes a “microprocessor” that “is
`
`programmed to sample each sensor.” (Id. at 2:24-25; see also 5:27-28; Fig. 5A,
`
`step 64.) According to Schousek, the force or weight detected by the sensors is
`
`“empirically related” to the weight, pressure, or force being exerted on the seat by
`
`an occupant. (Id. at col. 4, ll. 41-48.)
`
`The system of claim 17 must also include “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.” This is disclosed by Schousek. Again,
`
`Schousek includes a “microprocessor” that “sample[s] each sensor.” (Id. at 2:24-
`
`25; see also 5:27-28; Fig. 5A, step 64.) Input from the sensors is used to determine
`
`both “total weight” and “center of weight distribution” for purposes of classifying
`
`the occupant sitting on the passenger seat and controlling airbag deployment in
`
`view of the classification. (Id. at 2:25-30, 40-41.) To determine the “total weight,”
`
`the “force for each sensor” is “summed to obtain a total force or weight
`
`parameter.” (Id. at 5:28-31; see also Fig. 5A, step 68.)
`
`The remaining limitations of claim 17 require multiple “thresholds” that
`
`-20-
`
`

`
`
`
`cause the claimed system to behave in specific ways with respect to airbag
`
`enablement / inhibition. These “thresholds” include:
`
`
`
`“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 “clear[s] the flag when the relative weight parameter is below the
`
`unlock threshold for a time.”
`
`This is all disclosed by Schousek.
`
`“First threshold” that results in the system “allow[ing] deployment”:
`
`Schousek’s system includes a 10 pound “minimum weight threshold for an
`
`occupant infant seat.” (Id. at col. 5, ll. 36-39; see also col. 2, ll. 31-33; col. 4, ll.
`
`62-66.) Schousek will enable airbag deployment if the total weight / force exceeds
`
`this 10 pound threshold, and if “the center of weight distribution is not forward of
`
`[a] reference line.” (Id. at col. 5, ll. 42-50; Fig. 5A, steps 82, 84, 86.) This 10
`
`pound threshold corresponds with the claimed “first threshold” that “allow[s]
`
`-21-
`
`

`
`
`
`deployment.” While Schousek only enables airbag deployment if both the total
`
`weight exceeds 10 pounds and the center of weight is not forward of a reference
`
`line, there is nothing about claims 17 and 21 that would exclude conditioning an
`
`airbag “allow” or e