Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`
`DOCKET NO.: 2211726-00123
`Filed on behalf of Unified Patents Inc.
`By: David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Thomas Anderson, Reg. No. 37,063
`Daniel V. Williams 45,221
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email: David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`Jonathan Stroud, Reg. No. 72,518
`Unified Patents Inc.
`1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
`Washington, DC, 20009
`Tel: (202) 805-8931
`Email: jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________________________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`PATENT OWNER’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS SHOULD BE
`REJECTED ...................................................................................................... 2 
`
`III.  CONTRARY TO PATENT OWNER’S CONTENTION IN ITS
`RESPONSE, THE FILE HISTORY SUPPORTS THE CURRENT
`GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY .......................................................... 4 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Current References Disclose Feature that was Amended into Claims
`to Address Rejection ............................................................................. 4 
`Current References are Materially Better than Those Applied During
`Prosecution ............................................................................................ 6 
`
`IV.  PATENT OWNER IMPROPERLY AND INCORRECTLY ARGUES
`THAT THE TEACHINGS OF LEISING AND LAU CANNOT BE
`COMBINED .................................................................................................... 9 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`Lau Teaches to Extend Leising’s Side Airbag ...................................... 9 
`The Challenged Claims Do Not require a “B-Pillar” .......................... 10 
`It Would Have Been Obvious to Provide Leising’s Side Airbag with a
`Cover ................................................................................................... 11 
`PTAB Evaluated Combination ............................................................ 12 
`
`V. 
`
`LEISING’S EXTENDED SIDE AIRBAG WOULD BE OPERATIVE ...... 13 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`D. 
`
`Patent Owner Has not Established that One Would not Extend
`Leising’s Side Airbag because of Out of Position Occupants ............ 13 
`Leising’s Side Airbag Would not be Rendered Unsuitable for its
`Intended Purpose ................................................................................. 14 
`Choosing a Suitably Sized Inflator was Known in the Art ................. 16 
`Seat Belts Would Not Have Deterred One from Extending Leising’s
`Airbag .................................................................................................. 17 
`
`VI.  LEISING’S SIDE AIRBAG HAS A PLURALITY OF COMPARTMENTS
`THAT ARE IN FLOW COMMUNICATION WITH EACH OTHER ........ 18 
`
`i
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`
`VII.  PATENT OWNER FAILS TO OVERCOME PETITIONER’S SHOWING
`THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS TO EXTEND KARLOW’S
`SIDE AIRBAG IN VIEW OF LAU .............................................................. 21 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Patent Owner Improperly and Incorrectly Argues that the Teachings
`of Karlow and Lau Cannot be Combined ........................................... 21 
`Karlow’s Modification Would Not Result in Undue Seat Belt
`Interference or Series Injury ................................................................ 22 
`Patent Owner Lacks Any Evidence Sufficient to Show That Karlow
`Would be Unsuitable For Its Intended Purpose .................................. 24 
`D.  Karlow Discloses the Recited Cover ................................................... 25 
`
`VIII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 27 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`
`The Board has made a finding that it would have been obvious to extend the
`
`side airbag of Leising in order to protect rear seat occupants, based on the
`
`teachings of Lau. Decision at 18-19, Paper No. 13. The Board came to a similar
`
`conclusion with respect to the combination of Karlow and Lau. Id. at 30-31.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the grounds of patentability established in the Petition
`
`and instituted by the Board proffers legally deficient arguments that the challenged
`
`claims are patentable.
`
`First, similar to the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner continues to focus
`
`on the references individually, whereas Petitioner’s asserted grounds are based
`
`upon the teachings of the combination. The Board has already asserted that Patent
`
`Owner’s approach is improper. Decision at 17, 30, Paper No. 13. Second, Patent
`
`Owner fails to provide sufficient reasons why one would not have extended the
`
`primary references’ side airbags for obtaining the predictable and beneficial result
`
`of protecting rear seat occupants. Further, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding
`
`alleged inoperability of prior art combinations do not have merit. Any small
`
`calculations or adjustments that would have been needed to extend the airbags
`
`would have been addressed by employing routine skill.
`
`Further, Patent Owner’s assertions with respect to the file history are
`
`unavailing. The Board determined during prosecution that it would have been
`
`1
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`obvious to modify a primary reference’s side airbag for the purpose of protecting
`
`rear seat occupants.
`
` The references applied in the current grounds of
`
`unpatentability provide even stronger motivation to protect rear seat occupants.
`
`Thus, Patent Owner’s unsubstantiated contentions regarding the currently applied
`
`references do not overcome the grounds of unpatentability established in the
`
`Petition and confirmed by the Board.
`
`II.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS SHOULD BE
`REJECTED
`
`Patent Owner now argues that claim construction is warranted after
`
`submitting earlier that no claim construction is needed. Prel. Resp. at 16, Paper
`
`No. 7 (“AVS submits that the ordinary meaning of all claim terms should apply.”).
`
`The Board similarly decided that no express construction of any claim term was
`
`necessary. Decision at 8, Ex. 1021. Patent Owner has not submitted any sufficient
`
`evidence in support of the proposed constructions, and even if the constructions
`
`were adopted, the challenged claims would still be unpatentable.
`
`The ’093 patent does not provide an explicit define of “single airbag” as
`
`being “one airbag.” The ’093 patent equates the term “one airbag” with a single
`
`layer ’093 Patent at 80:26-29 (“[t]he problem which arises with a two airbag
`
`system with one airbag inside of and attached to the other, when both film layers
`
`have high elastic moduli and the cause of the tear in one airbag also causes a tear
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`in the second airbag….,”) (emphasis added). Equating the term “one airbag,”
`
`which is associated with a single layer, with the recited “single airbag” means that
`
`the single airbag of claim 1 could also be interpreted as limited to a single layer.
`
`However, claim 5 of ’093 patent recites that “the single airbag [of claim 1]
`
`comprises at least two material layers,” which means that interpreting the term
`
`“single airbag” in claim 1 as being a single layer is inconsistent with the broader
`
`recitation of multiple layers in claim 5.
`
`Patent Owner next proposes to construe a portion of claim 1 that is 62 words
`
`long. Resp. at 18, Paper No. 22. Patent Owner broadly asserts that the claim itself
`
`and the specification support the construction without providing any details or
`
`rationale. The proposed construction should therefore not be adopted.
`
`Lastly, Patent Owner asserts that the phrase “a plurality of compartments”
`
`should be construed so that the term “compartment” means “separate chamber.”
`
`Resp. at 19, Paper No. 22. Patent Owner does not assert that either the ’093 patent
`
`or the file history supports this construction and instead relies on a selected portion
`
`of a dictionary definition. Patent Owner has therefore not provided sufficient
`
`evidence to establish that such an express construction is warranted.
`
`Thus, Patent Owner’s newly minted constructions are incorrect and an
`
`apparent attempt to argue patentability via new constructions.
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`
`III. CONTRARY TO PATENT OWNER’S CONTENTION IN ITS
`RESPONSE, THE FILE HISTORY SUPPORTS THE CURRENT
`GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`
`Each of the current invalidity grounds uses fewer references than the final
`
`grounds asserted during prosecution. The current references were not applied
`
`during prosecution and are supported by an expert’s declaration. These references
`
`are materially better than those applied earlier, and Patent Owner’s contention
`
`(Paper 11-12 at 3) that the current grounds provide the “exact same arguments”
`
`raised in prosecution is incorrect.
`
`A. Current References Disclose Feature that was Amended into
`Claims to Address Rejection
`
`Patent Owner amended independent claim 1 to require “only one inflator”
`
`and claim 10 (issued claim 26) to require “a single inflator” immediately after the
`
`Board asserted that claims 1 and 10 were obvious over Kithil in view of Wilfred.
`
`The motivation articulated by the Board to combine Kithil and Wilfred is “to
`
`protect the passengers in both rows of the vehicle”:
`
`“We accept
`
`the Examiner’s reasoning and
`
`rationale for the underlying combination of references as
`
`our own, specifically that it would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`Applicant’s invention to include the protective elements
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`
`extending as a safety wall along the length of the
`
`passenger space as in Wilfert with the airbag system of
`
`Kithil in order to protect the passengers in both rows of
`
`the vehicle.”
`
`File History, Decision on Appeal at 9 (11/20/2013) (EX1011) (emphasis added).
`
`In Response, Patent Owner amended claim 1 to require “only one inflator” and
`
`claim 10 to require “a single inflator.” Patent Owner then emphasized this feature
`
`and argued that it’s not found in the Kithil or Wilfert:
`
`“Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and
`
`10 to further clarify the recited subject matter. Thus,
`
`claim 1 recites, in part, “a single gas-providing system
`
`that has only one inflator that provides gas to inflate the
`
`single airbag and which is arranged apart from the single
`
`airbag….Claim 10 recites, in part, “directing gas from a
`
`single
`
`inflator
`
`of
`
`a
`
`single
`
`gas
`
`providing
`
`system….Accordingly, Kithil does not teach at least
`
`these elements as set forth in claims 1 and 10 and Wilfert
`
`does not overcome the teaching deficiencies of Kithil.”
`
`File History, Request to Reopen Prosecution at 2, 4 and 13 (1/21/2014) (EX1012)
`
`(underlining in original). The Examiner then relied on a three reference
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`combination based on Kithil, Wilfert and Graebe. File History, Office Action at 3
`
`(3/28/2014) (EX1014). Patent Owner responded by arguing that Graebe teaches
`
`away from a combination with Wilfert and Kithil. File History, Response to Office
`
`Action at 27 (08/06/2014) (EX1015). The claims were eventually allowed based
`
`on Patent Owner’s arguments directed to alleged deficiencies with the three
`
`reference combination. File History, Response to Office Action (10/15/2014)
`
`(EX1017). As respectfully noted in the Petition, the Examiner’s use of the three
`
`references could have been more effectively tailored. Petition at 16-17, Paper No.
`
`2. Nevertheless, the current grounds require only two reference combinations and
`
`provide the “only one inflator” and “single inflator” limitations.
`
`B. Current References are Materially Better than Those Applied
`During Prosecution
`
`Patent Owner limited the claims to define over the prior art based on the
`
`“only one inflator” and “single inflator” limitations. Patent Owner now argues that
`
`it did not concede to the inflator limitations as being the novel feature due to filing
`
`additional arguments regarding the references not teaching “a single airbag
`
`extending across at least two seating positions of a passenger compartment of a
`
`vehicle, the single airbag arranged to deploy into the passenger compartment along
`
`a lateral side of the vehicle and adjacent each of the at least two seating positions,’
`
`as set forth in claim 1.” Resp. at 13, Paper No. 22 (emphasis added). In
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`particular, Patent Owner argued during prosecution that Kithil is allegedly
`
`deficient because it does not teach “an airbag arranged to deploy along a lateral
`
`side of the vehicle as set forth in claims 1 and 10.” File History, Response to
`
`Office Action at 17 (08/06/2014) (EX1015). For alleged support, Patent Owner
`
`submitted an Affidavit of Mr. Brown including a hand drawn figure depicting Mr.
`
`Brown’s understanding of Kithil, with the airbag extending longitudinally over the
`
`occupant’s head, as shown below.
`
`
`
`
`
`File History, Brown Affidavit at 4 (08/06/2014) (EX1015) (annotation added).
`
`Thus, even if Kithil is allegedly deficient for not disclosing a single airbag that
`
`deploys into the passenger compartment “along a lateral side of the vehicle,” this
`
`feature is clearly taught by both of the currently asserted primary references, as
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`shown below. Leising discloses the side airbag 41 that deploys along the lateral
`
`side of a vehicle and Lau discloses the side airbag 10 that does the same.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`Thus, the references of the current grounds are better than those applied
`
`during prosecution, making the Board’s articulated motivation to combine, as set
`
`forth during prosecution, even stronger.
`
`IV. PATENT OWNER IMPROPERLY AND INCORRECTLY ARGUES
`THAT THE TEACHINGS OF LEISING AND LAU CANNOT BE
`COMBINED
`
`Similar to the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner continues to focus on the
`
`references individually, whereas Petitioner’s asserted grounds are based upon the
`
`teachings of the combination. The Board has already asserted that Patent Owner’s
`
`approach is improper. Decision at 17, 30, Paper No. 13; see also Keller, 642 F.2d
`
`at 426 (holding that nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references
`
`individually where the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a
`
`combination of references). The Board agreed that Petitioner has shown “a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating that it would have been
`
`obvious to extend the side airbag of Leising in order to protect also passengers in
`
`the back seat, based on the teachings of Lau.” Decision at 18, Paper No. 13.
`
`Patent Owner has failed to provide sufficient evidence to the contrary.
`
`A. Lau Teaches to Extend Leising’s Side Airbag
`A POSA would have been motivated to extend Leising’s side airbag to
`
`protect rear seat occupants based on Lau’s teaching. Petition at 26-27, Paper No.
`
`2. Patent Owner’s contentions (Paper 22 at 30-31) are unavailing because they fail
`
`9
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`to properly consider the combined teachings of Leising and Lau, e.g., extending
`
`Leising’s side air bag to protect rear seat occupants, based on Lau’s teaching to use
`
`a single unit with one inflator to protect front and rear seat occupants.
`
`For example, Patent Owner improperly argues that “there is no teaching in
`
`Lau that either of its two separate airbags deploy downward.” Resp. at 32, Paper
`
`No. 22; see also id. at 50. First, only challenged claim 36 requires the airbag to
`
`deploy downward. Second, the side airbag 41 of Leising does downwardly deploy
`
`and allegations with respect to Lau do not detract from why one would have
`
`extended Leising’s side airbag to protect rear seat occupants.
`
`Contrary to Patent Owners arguments (Paper 22 at 33-35), before the ’093
`
`patent’s alleged priority date, a POSA would have known that a reasonable chance
`
`existed for successfully extending Leising’s side airbag. Prasad Decl. ¶ 3, Ex.
`
`1021. Extending Leising’s side airbag would have yielded the predictable result of
`
`providing rear seat occupants with the same protection known to benefit front seat
`
`passengers. Id. Alleged aspects of Lau’s individual structural features do not
`
`detract from the desirability of extending Leising’s side airbag for additional
`
`protection, as taught by Lau. Id.
`
`The Challenged Claims Do Not require a “B-Pillar”
`
`B.
`Patent Owner’s citations to Lau’s B-pillar (e.g., Paper 22 at 34-36, and 53)
`
`have no bearing on why one would have modified Leising’s side airbag. Even Mr.
`
`10
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`Nranian acknowledges that claim 1 does not explicitly recite a B-pillar. Nranian
`
`Tr. 56:6-10, Ex. 1022. Nevertheless, Leising’s extended airbag, when modified in
`
`view of Lau, would cross a vehicle’s a B-pillar, making this feature obvious even if
`
`it were a claim requirement. Prasad Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 1021. In particular, when the
`
`side airbag 41 shown in Figure 3 of Leising is extended to the rear seat area, the B-
`
`pillar would be crossed. Leising at Figure 3, Ex. 1002; Prasad Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 1021.
`
`Although Figure 3 does not explicitly show the B-pillar, a POSA would understand
`
`that the B-pillar forms part of the vehicle’s body between the front and rear rows of
`
`seats. Prasad Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 1021. Thus, Patent Owner’s B-pillar related
`
`arguments do not detract from Lau’s teaching to extend an airbag for rear seat
`
`protection.
`
`C.
`
`It Would Have Been Obvious to Provide Leising’s Side Airbag
`with a Cover
`
`Petitioner described why it would have been obvious to modify Leising to
`
`include a cover, as taught by Lau. Petition at 29, Paper No. 2. Instead of
`
`addressing the combined teachings of the references, Patent Owner makes
`
`allegations (Paper 22 at 42) about of Lau’s cover by asserting that the breakaway
`
`doors 43 and 45 would need to endure door slamming and environmental
`
`conditions.
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`A POSA exercising independent judgment would have understood how to
`
`implement the cover in Leising to account for durability or reliability issues using
`
`routine testing. Prasad Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 1021. “One with ordinary skill in the art is
`
`not compelled to follow blindly the teaching of one prior art reference over the
`
`other without the exercise of independent judgment. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip
`
`Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21 (A
`
`person with ordinary skill in the art is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an
`
`automaton,” and “in many cases . . . will be able to fit the teachings of multiple
`
`patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”).” Whether Lau’s cover would be
`
`subjected to these forces does not detract from Lau’s teaching to (1) extend a rear
`
`airbag or (2) provide a cover for Leising’s airbag. Prasad Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 1021.
`
`D.
`PTAB Evaluated Combination
`As discussed in Section III.A, supra, the Board previously evaluated a
`
`combination of two references, Kithil and Wilfred, and found that protecting
`
`passengers in both rows of a vehicle is sufficient rationale for modifying Kithil’s
`
`front seat side airbag. File History, Decision on Appeal at 9 (11/20/2013)
`
`(EX1011). The same rationale exists for modifying Leising; however, Leising is a
`
`stronger primary reference then Kithil, as noted in Section III.B., supra. Changing
`
`the size of a side airbag so that it extends to a rear seat area is not a patentable
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`distinction, as was previously noted by the Board during prosecution and in the
`
`Decision on Institution for the present proceeding.
`
`Not only does Lau teach to provide front and rear seat protection using a
`
`single unit, it also teaches that airbag shapes can be altered to obtain desired
`
`results. Lau at 2:46–49, Ex. 1003 (“It will be understood that although FIG. 1
`
`shows a[] air bag of relatively long narrow shape, other air bag shapes may be
`
`employed within the ordinary skill of the art in order to obtain the desired results.”)
`
`(emphasis added). Patent Owner has not provided evidence sufficient to overcome
`
`the motivation found by the Board to combine Leising and Lau.
`
`V. LEISING’S EXTENDED SIDE AIRBAG WOULD BE OPERATIVE
`A POSA would have been taught to extend Leising’s side airbag to the rear
`
`seat area for the purpose of protecting occupants based on Lau’s teachings.
`
`Extending Leising’s airbag in this manner would prevent injuries, not cause them.
`
`Prasad Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 1021.
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner Has not Established that One Would not Extend
`Leising’s Side Airbag because of Out of Position Occupants
`
`Leising’s extended side airbag would have provided the same protection for
`
`rear seat occupants as it provided for front seat occupants. Id. Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments regarding “out of position” occupants do not detract from the
`
`motivation to combine the references. Id. Patent Owner alleges that pictures of
`
`13
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`test dummies (Paper No. 22 at 44-46) support its argument that “out of position”
`
`occupants would be affected by the combination. This position is not sufficient for
`
`the following reasons. First, each of the pictures shows test dummies in the front
`
`seat of a vehicle. Id. Petitioner’s ground of unpatentability is based on extending
`
`Leising’s side airbag to a rear seat area. Thus, the pictures are not representative
`
`of a modified airbag according to Petitioner’s ground. Id.
`
`Second, arguments directed to an out of position occupant being injured by
`
`Leising’s side airbag, as it deploys downwardly, lack merit due to all airbags
`
`having the potential to cause an unintended injury. Id. Mr. Nranian acknowledges
`
`that airbags have always posed an injury risk and that even challenged claim 1
`
`could cause injury when deployed. Nranian Tr. 21:21-22:2; 33:18-34:5, Ex. 1022.
`
`If such risks existed, a POSA would have known to how to appropriately mitigate
`
`them through ordinary skill and routine testing. Prasad Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 1021.
`
`B.
`
`Leising’s Side Airbag Would not be Rendered Unsuitable for its
`Intended Purpose
`
`Leising’s extended side airbag would be operative and suitable for its
`
`intended purpose. Prasad Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 1021. Patent Owner’s arguments (Paper
`
`22 at 51-53) regarding the combination of Leising and Lau being “dangerous to
`
`do” are not correct. Prasad Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 1021. Patent Owner reproduces Figure 5
`
`of Leising for alleged support. Resp. at 52, Paper No. 22. However, extending
`
`14
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`Leising’s side airbag to the rear seat area would have no effect on the front seat
`
`occupant shown in Figure 5. Prasad Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 1021. If Patent Owner is
`
`alleging that the front airbag of Leising would cause an unintended injury, instead
`
`of the extended side airbag, Leising actually discloses that the embodiment of
`
`Figure 5 is beneficial and desirable:
`
`“This position [shown in Figure 5] may be as
`
`desirable during an impact as having the bag section 43
`
`located between the torso and the instrument panel. In
`
`either event the passenger or occupant is restrained from
`
`substantial forward movement after the bag is deployed.”
`
`Leising at 5:22-27; Prasad Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 1021.
`
`Even if Patent Owner could show that there may be a situation when the
`
`configuration of Figure 5 causes an unintended injury, this would not retract from
`
`one wanting to extend Leising’s side airbag, based on Lau’s teachings, to protect
`
`rear seat occupants. Prasad Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 1021. As noted above, Mr. Nranian
`
`agrees that airbags have always posed the risk of injury. Nranian Tr. 21:21-22:2,
`
`Ex. 1022. Further, even if the challenged claims had a limitation directed to a
`
`safety standard, which they do not, a POSA before the alleged priority date of the
`
`‘093 patent would have been able to employ routine skill and independent
`
`judgement to meet such as standard. Prasad Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 1021. Thus, Patent
`
`15
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`Owner has not established that extending Leising’s side airbag would result in a
`
`configuration that is either unsuitable or inoperative to provide protection.
`
`C. Choosing a Suitably Sized Inflator was Known in the Art
`A POSA implementing an airbag system before 1995 would have known
`
`what size inflator to use for a given volume. Prasad Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 1021. Even if a
`
`larger capacity inflator would have been needed to fill Leising’s extended side
`
`airbag, the increased volume of the airbag would offset the larger capacity of the
`
`inflator. Id. Patent Owner is therefore not correct in asserting that Leising’s
`
`extended side airbag would “require an inflator that is so powerful that the
`
`magnitude of the injuries that it would cause would far outweigh any type of
`
`potential benefit.” Resp. at 55, Paper No. 22; Prasad Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 1021. A POSA
`
`would know to not blindly choose an inflator that is so strong that the chance of
`
`unintended injuries would substantially increase. Id. at ¶ 9, Ex. 1021. Further, it
`
`was known in the art to control pressure of an inflating airbag. Id. For example,
`
`Lau teaches to control pressure within the bag portions 40 and 42 using a vent
`
`hole. Lau at 2:34-36, Ex. 1003 (“Each air bag 40 and 42 has a vent hole 46 at the
`
`end thereof to control the pressure within the bag.”) Thus, even if the challenged
`
`claims had a pressure requirement, which they do not, a POSA would know how to
`
`choose a suitable inflator and control pressure as needed based on routine testing
`
`and adjustments. Id.
`
`16
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`
`Seat Belts Would Not Have Deterred One from Extending
`Leising’s Airbag
`
`D.
`
`In its response, Patent Owner alleges that one would not have combined
`
`Leising and Lau because “Lau’s air bag would have interfered with the proper
`
`operation of the seat belt system if it were positioned upward along the B-pillar.”
`
`Resp. at 47, Paper No. 22. First, there is no indication that Lau’s airbag cannot be
`
`implemented without seat belt interference. Prasad Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. 1021.
`
`Nevertheless, if there was interference between a seat belt and the airbag, it would
`
`have been addressed through routine testing and adjustments known in the art. Id.
`
`Patent Owner is again looking at Lau individually instead of the references’
`
`combined teachings.
`
`With respect to Leising specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the reference
`
`does not mention “how it’s airbag would work with seatbelts.” Resp. at 54, Paper
`
`No. 22. Whether Leising mentions seatbelts or not would not teach away from
`
`extending Leising’s side airbag to protect rear seat occupants. Id. A POSA would
`
`have been able to implement Leising’s extended side airbag even if seatbelts were
`
`used. Id. Similar to Lau, if there was interference, it would have been addressed
`
`through routine testing and adjustments known in the art. Id. The inventors of the
`
`’093 patent appear to acknowledge this due to not including details in the ’093
`
`patent that explain how the ’093 side airbag is intended to work with seatbelts. Id.
`
`17
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`Mr. Nranian, confirmed that one would only need to run tests to ensure a
`
`side airbag would be operable when seat belts are used. Nranian Tr. 112:19-
`
`113:21. Further, a side impact that causes a side airbag to deploy would not
`
`necessarily cause a seatbelt to lock, which means that the seatbelt would have
`
`some slack during a side impact to help avoid undue interference with the airbag.
`
`Prasad Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. 1021. Thus, any alleged lack of detail in Leising regarding
`
`a seatbelt would not have taught away from extending Leising’s side airbag to a
`
`rear seat area. Id.
`
`VI. LEISING’S SIDE AIRBAG HAS A PLURALITY OF
`COMPARTMENTS THAT ARE IN FLOW COMMUNICATION
`WITH EACH OTHER
`
`Figures 8 and 11 of Leising are reproduced below to show the plurality of
`
`compartments. The compartments, annotated as 1-4, are in flow communication
`
`with each other for the reasons noted in the Petition. Petition at 31-33, Paper No.
`
`2.
`
`18
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner improperly contends that “there is no teaching that the
`
`restraining webs 53 separate the side curtain into a plurality of compartments or
`
`that air passes from one compartment to another through or around the restraining
`
`webs 53.” Resp. at 57, Paper No. 22 (emphasis added). This assertion is
`
`inaccurate for the reasons noted in the Petition. Petition at 31-33, Paper No. 2.
`
`Further, Patent Owner’s expert even testified that gas can indeed pass around the
`
`restraining webs:
`
`Q. For the sake of our discussion, if I were to label
`
`the area between the left most restraining web and the
`
`center web as one, and also label the area between the
`
`middle restraining web and the restraining web on the far
`
`19
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`
`right as two, is it possible for gas molecules to go around
`
`the bottom of the middle restraining web from area one
`
`into area two?
`
`A. Yes. But that's not what's in the '093 patent,
`
`and I talk about that --
`
`Nranian Tr. 101:18-102:5, Ex. 1022 (emphasis added).
`
`Mr. Nranian also contends that “Fig. 11 [of Leising] shows only the center
`
`portion of the side curtain containing the restraining webs.” Resp. at 58, Paper No.
`
`22. However, Mr. Nranian’s interpretation of Figure 11 does not take away from
`
`Leising’s disclosure of a side airbag with a plurality of compartments that are in
`
`flow communication with each other. Prasad Decl. ¶ 12, Ex. 1021.
`
` Mr. Nranian’s then argues that Lau’s airbag is not sufficient to mitigate
`
`risks of ejection or partial ejection. Resp. at 58, Paper No. 22. First, the
`
`challenged claims do not have a limitation regarding the extent to which a risk of
`
`ejection is mitigated. Second, Mr. Nranian’s allegation with respect to ejection
`
`prevention of Lau’s side airbag does not take away from the compartments
`
`disclosed in Leising. Thus, Patent Owner has not proffered evidence sufficient to
`
`overcome the Board’s finding that Leising discloses the claimed compartments.
`
`Decision at 19, Paper No. 13.
`
`20
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition
`IPR2016-00364
`
`
`VII. PATENT OWNER FAILS TO OVERCOME PETITIONER’S
`SHOWING THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS TO EXTEND
`KARLOW’S SIDE AIRBAG IN VIEW OF LAU
`
`As set forth in the Petition, the teachings of Lau would have motivated a
`
`POSA to extend Karlow’s side airbag to protect rear seat occupants. Petition at 26-
`
`27, Paper No. 2. The Board agreed with Petitioner (Paper No. 13 at 29-33) and
`
`Patent Owner has not provided any sufficient evidence to the contrary.
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner Improperly and Incorrectly Argues that the
`Teachings of Karlow and Lau Cannot be Combined
`
`Patent Owner again makes arguments relying on the references’ individual
`
`teachings without appreciating the combined teachings. Resp. at 59-61, Paper No.
`
`22. For example, Patent Owner argues that the references were not combinable for
`
`the following structural reasons:
`
` The direction that Lau’s airbag is deployed. Resp. at 62, Paper No.
`
`22.
`
` The direction that gas flows away from Lau’s inflator. Resp. at 65-66,
`
`Paper No. 22.
`
`Once again, Patent Owner’s arguments are incons