`IPR2016-00366, Paper No. 17
`March 7, 2017
`
`trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. And AISIN SEIKI CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - - -
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`Technology Center 3600
`Oral Hearing Held: Thursday, February 16, 2017
`
`Before: MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, JEREMY M.
`PLENZLER (via video link), and JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative
`Patent Judges.
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`February 16, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., in Hearing Room B, taken at the U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER AISIN SEIKI:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WILLIAM H. MANDIR, ESQ.
`DAVID P. EMERY, ESQ.
`Sughrue Mion PLLC
`2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20037-3213
`202-293-7060
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER TOYOTA:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MARK A. CHAPMAN, ESQ.
`GEORGE E. BADENOCH, ESQ.
`Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, New York 10004-1007
`212-908-6308
`
`KURACHI NOBOU
`Aisin Seiki Representative
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES: (Continued)
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TAREK N. FAHMI, ESQ.
`Ascenda Law Group
`333 West San Carlos Street
`Suite 200
`San Jose, California 95110-2730
`408-389-3537
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`(1:30 p.m.)
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Good afternoon. We are
`here in the matters of IPR2016- 00292 and IPR2016- 00366. I
`want to start by having a couple reminders, that since we have
`a remote judge joining us today, that you must stand behind
`the podium and speak into the microphone when you present.
`And.
`
`If you are going to show us slides, Judge Plenzler
`may not be able to see the slides, so you need to refer to the
`slides by number.
`So we will start with appearances. I understand we
`have two Petitioners today. If you would both stand and
`introduce yourself.
`MR. MANDIR: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`William Mandir on behalf of Petitioner Aisin Seiki. With me
`from our firm is Dave Emery.
`We also have a corporate representative from Aisin
`Seiki, Mr. Nobou.
`JUDGE PLENZLER: Sorry, I have to jump in real
`quick here. When you speak, could you please approach the
`podium? Otherwise I can't hear what you guys are saying.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`Thanks.
`
`MR. MANDIR: Sorry, Your Honor. William
`Mandir from Sughrue Mion in Washington, D.C. on behalf of
`the Petitioner, Aisin Seiki. With me today is Mr. Emery from
`our firm. And also we have a corporate representative, Nobou,
`from Aisin Seiki.
`MR. CHAPMAN: Good afternoon. I'm Mark
`Chapman, counsel for Toyota. With me is George Badenoch
`from our firm. And we also have some representatives from
`Toyota.
`
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right. And I understand
`Petitioners are going to split the time today. Are you splitting
`15 minutes each, roughly?
`MR. MANDIR: Probably not exactly a split like
`
`that-s.
`
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: You will be presenting first
`and then Mr. Chapman?
`MR. MANDIR: That's correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you. And from the
`Patent Owner?
`MR. FAHMI: Good afternoon, Your Honors. My
`name is Tarek Fahmi and I'm here representing the Patent
`
`
`
`5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`Owner, Signal.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you. So, Petitioners,
`you have 30 minutes total to discuss. Are you going to reserve
`any time for rebuttal?
`MR. MANDIR: Yes, Your Honor. We would like
`to reserve seven minutes, if we may.
`MR. PETRAVICK: All right. You may begin
`when you are ready.
`MR. MANDIR: Thank you, Your Honor. So we
`have in slide 2, there is one instituted ground in this
`proceeding and it is the same instituted ground for both Aisin
`and Toyota. It is claim 17 and 21 of the '007 patent based on
`anticipation of a U.S. patent to Schousek.
`Slide 3. We reproduce claim 17 and 21. We have
`highlighted in three boxes with green, red and blue colors the
`three disputed claim limitations by the Patent Owner. Patent
`Owner has not disputed any other terms in claim 17 and hasn't
`disputed anything independently for claim 21.
`I'm going to talk about the first limitation in the
`green box, "allow deployment when the relative weight
`parameter is above the first threshold," and Mr. Chapman will
`take the other two limitations which deal with setting and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`clearing the lock flag.
`Slide 4. On the left-hand side we have figure 1 of
`the '007 patent and on the right-hand side we have figure 1 of
`Schousek. And, as you can see, the structures of the two
`patents are identical.
`In fact, figure 1 of the '007 patent indicates that it
`is the same structure as Schousek. In fact, if you look in the
`background section of the '007 patent, the Schousek patent is
`incorporated by reference and the '007 patent indicates that the
`Schousek patent is a foundation to the '007 patent. So the
`structures are the same.
`The next slide, slide 5, is a summary slide which
`gives a summary of the various features of claim 17 and how
`they read on the Schousek patent. And we will discuss this
`correspondence in our presentation this afternoon. And we
`just have this slide as just a handy summary of our positions.
`Slide 6. As mentioned, there is three disputed
`limitations in this IPR. I'm going to talk about the first one,
`"allow deployment when the relative weight parameter is
`above the first threshold."
`Slide 7. Just at the outset I would like to point out
`that the Panel rejected Patent Owner's preliminary response
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`arguments in its Institution Decision. Since that time Patent
`Owner has filed a Patent Owner Response which set forth the
`same arguments that it had in the preliminary response.
`We didn't see any new arguments in the Patent
`Owner's Response. We didn't see any evidence or new
`evidence. So for the same reasons that the Panel found for the
`Institution Decision, we think they still apply here.
`Okay. Slide 8. This is the first disputed
`limitation, allow deployment when the weight is above the
`first threshold. The Schousek patent teaches a 10- pound
`minimum infant seat weight threshold that corresponds to the
`claimed first threshold in claim 17. Schousek allows
`deployment when the weight, the sensed weight of the
`occupant, is above this threshold level.
`And this is shown in figure 5A. I'm looking at
`slide 9. Figure 5A is on the left-hand side. We have a green
`box, rectangle, which indicates the flow of this flow chart
`which indicates that Schousek allows deployment when
`weight -- when the sensed weight is above the threshold.
`Schousek sets the decision to deploy in step 86,
`which is the bottom box within our green box, if the weight is
`above the minimum threshold, which is that 10- pound
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`threshold, in box 76, which is the box on the top of the green
`rectangle, and the center of weight distribution of the occupant
`is not forward of the reference line.
`And if we could just real quickly I wanted to go
`through these steps in figure 5A.
`JUDGE PLENZLER: Let me just -- let me jump in
`real quick here. I don't -- my understanding from reading the
`papers is that there is not much dispute as far as what
`Schousek actually discloses. Right? It is more of what is
`required by the claim. So maybe if we could initially just talk
`about what is required by that “allows” step.
`I'm wondering, it seems that your position is that it
`just has to at some point allow deployment. Right? It doesn't
`have to be just based on that determination, that initial, in
`Schousek, for example, the minimum infant seat threshold.
`You can have subsequent steps that are required to go through
`before you make your decision.
`I'm wondering if you can point to anything in that
`'007 patent that supports your understanding, if you have an
`example that is basically in line with your view?
`MR. MANDIR: I think, Your Honor, that what
`supports our position is the language of claim 17. The
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`language of claim 17 talks about allowing deployment when
`the relative weight parameter is above the threshold.
`And what we would say is that the claim doesn't
`say, for example, always allow deployment when the relative
`weight parameter is above the first threshold.
`JUDGE PLENZLER: Is that what the spec says,
`though, is that what the spec says at column 2, around lines 60
`to 61, talking about the system being so that you always allow
`deployment above a certain weight?
`MR. MANDIR: Well, the preferred embodiment
`shows that flow chart that, once you are above the weight in
`the '007, then you allow deployment. That's correct.
`But the claim -- and that's what Schousek does --
`but there is nothing in the language of the claim or something
`in the specification that we would say that this feature that is
`in Schousek, of this safety feature, additional safety feature,
`that says even if you are above the 10- pound threshold weight,
`then you can -- and it is determined to be a rearward- facing
`infant seat, in that case deployment, even though it's more
`than the 10- pound threshold, is not desirable and we're not
`going to do it.
`So as you go through the flow chart in figure 5A of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`Schousek we see, once it is above 10 pounds and it is
`confirmed that, in fact, this is an infant seat that is
`forward-facing, then we will allow deployment.
`So I would say that you are correct that the '007
`patent describes the embodiment where, yes, if it is more than
`the threshold, this first threshold that allows deployment,
`Schousek does that, too. It just has this additional feature and
`it does that without any change in exactly the way the patent
`anticipates.
`JUDGE PLENZLER: Isn't the '007 patent when it
`is talking about allowing deployment when you're above the
`first threshold, isn't that more like step 72 in the flow chart
`that you're looking at, where you're talking about a total
`weight greater than the maximum infant seat threshold?
`MR. MANDIR: Step 72?
`JUDGE PLENZLER: And I know you can't use
`that because then later on the claim requires a lock threshold
`and that has to be above the first threshold, so it seems like
`that is why you can't cite to that limitation.
`What I'm wondering, though, is that minimum
`infant seat threshold is, basically I think Schousek says it is
`indicative of an empty seat, right?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`MR. MANDIR: If it is below that, if it's below
`that it is. If it is above it, it is an indication of an infant seat
`or a small child.
`JUDGE PLENZLER: Right. So it's the line. It's
`the line between empty seat and a small child. And you cite
`the same thing for your unlock threshold.
`I'm just wondering what meaning this allow
`deployment, right, when the weight parameter is above the
`first threshold, really has if it just means allow deployment,
`right, if you are something more than an empty seat?
`Isn't every airbag system set up so that at some
`point if you have something in the seat that meets a certain
`threshold you are going to allow deployment? How does that
`really limit the claim?
`MR. MANDIR: How does that limit? You are
`talking about Schousek, how it limits claim 17?
`JUDGE PLENZLER: How your reading of that --
`how your interpretation of allow deployment limits this claim
`17 in any kind of meaningful way, if effectively you are
`reading it to just say that, you know, at some point you are
`allowing deployment when, you know, you have something --
`because if you are above the minimum threshold the seat is not
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`empty in Schousek, right? That's all you are determining.
`Okay, it is not empty. Go on to subsequent steps.
`What I'm asking is in every airbag system where
`you're determining whether or not something is in the seat,
`you know, at some point, if the weight is high enough you're
`going to do this step. So, I mean, what real meaning does this
`have to the claim?
`MR. MANDIR: So what I would say, Your Honor,
`this first threshold, at least for purposes of comparing it to
`Schousek, the first threshold, if it is above it, according to
`Schousek, then it indicates it is an infant seat or a small child.
`It says it specifically in step 80. That's the conclusion.
`If it is less than that threshold, then it is something
`lighter than an infant seat or it is an empty seat. So in
`Schousek when you go through it and this first threshold is
`determined, it has to reach above this 10- pound, it is a specific
`weight that the patent describes that corresponds to the
`minimum weight of an infant seat, so if it is more than 10
`pounds, then that's a question, okay, it is an infant seat.
`It is not the higher maximum weight that you
`mentioned in step 72. It is an infant seat. And we're going to
`allow deployment as long as it is a forward- facing seat. And
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`if it is determined to be a rearward- facing seat, then that's not
`a situation that we want deployment.
`So I think it certainly is a -- it's a requirement that
`has to be met in claim 17 and we would submit that Schousek
`meets that in step 76.
`JUDGE PLENZLER: What does the last step
`require, when it says allow deployment while the lock flag is
`set, does that require always allowing deployment when the
`lock flag is set?
`MR. MANDIR: The claim limitation is something
`for Mr. Chapman but I will answer your question. The lock
`flag, the claim limitation says that if it is in a lock flag for a
`given time, I believe is the exact language. So if it has been
`for a given time in the lock flag, then it allows deployment,
`that's correct.
`JUDGE PLENZLER: So you would be always
`allowing deployment while the lock flag is set, right? I'm just
`wondering, we have two instances that allow deployment in
`this claim here. Do they have different meanings, is what I'm
`wondering?
`MR. MANDIR: Well, yes, because it will allow --
`that's right, if it's the lock flag gets set, it will allow
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`deployment and, even if it goes below that, as long as the lock
`flag is set, it will allow deployment.
`So I guess the answer to your question, if I
`understand it, is, yes, it would allow deployment as long as the
`lock flag is set.
`So let me just move to step -- to slide 11, if I may.
`I'm going to give Mr. Chapman some time to talk about these
`last two limitations.
`This is the Institution Decision. And this argument
`that Patent Owner made concerning that you can't -- you have
`to always allow deployment whenever the parameter is above
`the first threshold, this was addressed by the Panel in its
`decision.
`
`And in response to this argument the Panel said
`Patent Owner's argument that the claim somehow prohibits
`further restrictions on airbag deployment is not supported by
`the claim language, and also there is nothing else in the record
`to support it. And we think this is an important point that we
`agree with.
`And, as mentioned, the claim doesn't recite always
`allow deployment when the relative weight parameter is above
`the first threshold. And based on the specification, perhaps
`
`
`
`15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`they could have written such a claim, but they didn't.
`And we think that the case law as well as the broad
`language of the claims supports our reading that the first
`threshold is found in figure A of Schousek.
`And with that I would like to leave the remaining
`time to Mr. Chapman.
`MR. CHAPMAN: Good afternoon, again. This is
`Mark Chapman for Toyota. If we could go to slide 14, please.
`So I'm going to address the other two limitations, the set a flag
`limitation and the clear the flag limitation. So here is the set
`a flag limitation on slide 14: "Set a lock flag when the
`relative weight parameter is above the lock threshold and
`deployment has been allowed for a given time."
`So as we explained in our papers, Schousek
`discloses this. First of all, the 50- pound maximum threshold
`in Schousek corresponds to the lock threshold. And as I will
`explain shortly with reference to figures 5A and 5B of
`Schousek, Schousek sets a lock flag when the weight is above
`that threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given
`time.
`
`So if we can go to 15, please. So here is figure 5A
`of Schousek. And we have highlighted boxes 72 and 74. And
`
`
`
`16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`in those boxes we can see that Schousek allows deployment
`when the weight goes above the lock threshold, which is the
`maximum threshold in Schousek. So we see in box 74 the
`decision is set to deploy if the weight goes above the
`maximum threshold in box 72. And then the algorithm
`proceeds down to figure 5B.
`So if we could go to slide 16, here is figure 5B and
`this is where we submit that Schousek is setting the lock flag
`and it is doing that after deployment has been allowed for a
`given time, namely five cycles of this algorithm of figures 5A
`and 5B. So if you set -- if the decision is set to deploy in box
`74 and that's maintained for five consecutive cycles, when you
`get to box 98 the algorithm will determine that all of the five
`decisions are the same, and at that point that decision to
`deploy will be transmitted to the module in box 100, and it
`will replace whatever the previous decision that was
`transmitted to the module was.
`And once that happens, that locks in the deploy
`decision until a new decision comes along to displace it. And
`that won't happen until you get five new consecutive decisions
`that are the same.
`So this, just to pause for a moment, the claim
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`requires deployment to have been allowed for a given time.
`And deployment has been allowed for a given time because the
`decision in box 74 has been set to deploy for five cycles,
`which Schousek discloses would be five seconds because each
`cycle takes one second.
`So if we could go to slide 17. This is just a
`summary slide. So just to recap, Schousek sets the lock flag
`when it transmits the deploy decision to the airbag module in
`box 100, because that locks in that deploy decision, and it
`does this after the weight exceeds the maximum threshold and
`the decision is set to deploy for five cycles or has been
`maintained for five seconds.
`If we go to the next slide, on this limitation the
`Patent Owner's argument, as I understand it, is that Schousek
`doesn't disclose this limitation because it does not consult the
`previous decision that was previously transmitted to the
`module in box 100.
`And our response to that is we don't think the
`limitation requires that. What it requires is that the flag be set
`when the weight goes above the threshold and deployment has
`been allowed for a given time, and that Schousek meets both
`of those requirements because it locks in that decision when
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`the weight goes above the threshold and the decision is set to
`deploy in box 74 for five consecutive cycles.
`So we think, if you go to the next slide, this is
`slide 19, in the Institution Decision the Board considered the
`Patent Owner's argument, which is the same argument I just
`described, and concluded that it had not persuaded them. And
`in the Patent Owner Response, after institution, the Patent
`Owner makes the same argument that it made in the
`preliminary response.
`And so we think the Board should, you know, make
`the same finding in the final decision that it did in the
`Institution Decision and conclude that Schousek discloses the
`setting a lock flag limitation.
`So unless there are any questions about that, given
`my time I would like to move to the third limitation.
`So if we move to slide 20, "clear the flag when the
`relative weight parameter is below the unlock threshold for a
`time." That's the third disputed limitation. So for this one it
`is Schousek's 10- pound threshold, the minimum infant seat
`weight threshold that corresponds to the unlock threshold.
`And, as I will explain, Schousek clears the lock flag when the
`weight goes below that threshold for a time.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`So if we go to slide 21, here again is figure 5A but
`this time we have highlighted boxes 76 and 78. And here you
`can see that Schousek will inhibit deployment when the weight
`goes below the unlock threshold.
`So if the weight goes below the unlock threshold in
`box 76, or the minimum threshold is how it is described in
`Schousek, then the decision is going to be set to not deploy in
`box 78.
`
`And then if we go to slide 22, the algorithm will
`continue to figure 5B, and here is where Schousek is going to
`clear the flag after the weight has been below that threshold
`for a time, as the claim requires, namely, again, the five cycles
`of the algorithm.
`So if you collect five decisions not to deploy in
`box 78, in other words, if that decision is maintained for five
`cycles, then Schousek will clear the flag by replacing a
`previous decision to deploy with the new decision to not
`deploy and transmit that decision to not deploy to the airbag
`module.
`
`So if we go to slide 23, this is just a summary
`slide. But just to recap here, Schousek, it clears the flag and
`it does that when it replaces the deploy decision with a
`
`
`
`20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`decision to not deploy, in boxes 100 and 102, and it does this
`after the weight has been below the minimum threshold for a
`time because it only does that after you have five cycles in
`which the weight is below that threshold and the decision is
`set to not deploy in box 78.
`So if we go to slide 24, on this limitation the
`Patent Owner's argument is that Schousek doesn't disclose this
`limitation because it also discloses inhibiting deployment
`when the weight is above the minimum threshold. In other
`words, if the center of weight distribution is forward of the
`reference lines, Schousek will inhibit deployment.
`And we don't think this is a good response because
`the fact that Schousek discloses that doesn't really matter
`because Schousek also discloses -- and it is sufficient that it
`discloses -- inhibiting deployment when the weight goes below
`the minimum thresholds. And as we just explained, it clears
`the flag when it goes below that threshold in the manner I just
`described in figure 5B.
`So now if we go to slide 25, here again is an
`excerpt from the Board's Institution Decision. And the Patent
`Owner made the argument that I just described in the
`preliminary response, and the Board considered the argument
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`and rejected it for the reasons that we just explained, which is
`that Schousek clears the flag when it replaces the decision to
`deploy with a new decision to not deploy after you have five
`cycles in which the decision is set to not deploy or inhibit.
`And once, again, in the Patent Owner Response the
`Patent Owner repeated the same argument that it made in the
`preliminary response. So, again, we see no reason for the
`Board to deviate from its original finding on this point.
`So if we go to the next slide -- that's it for those
`two disputed limitations. I don't know if there are any
`questions that the Board has for us about those? Okay.
`So Mr. Mandir addressed the first limitation and I
`addressed the last -- the second and third. Those are the only
`limitations that the Patent Owner disputes Schousek
`disclosing. So with respect to the other limitations of claim
`17, the additional limitation of claim 21, those are undisputed
`that Schousek discloses those.
`So just to wrap up on slide 27, Petitioners would --
`we submit that Schousek discloses all of the limitations of
`claim 17 and 21 and, therefore, we would ask that the Board
`find the claims to be anticipated by Schousek.
`Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you.
`MR. FAHMI: Good afternoon, Your Honors, and
`may it please the Board. The patentability of claim 17 and 21
`should be confirmed over Schousek.
`Your Honors, anticipation is a technical challenge,
`and one that must be met by strict standards. Unless all of the
`claim elements are found in exactly the form presented in the
`challenged claim, in other words, the same situation, united in
`the same way, to perform the identical function as in the
`claim, there is no anticipation.
`Now, here, contrary to the Petitioner's contentions,
`the minimum weight of an occupied infant seat as taught in
`Schousek is not equivalent to the recited first threshold of the
`relative weight parameter set forth in claim 17.
`In Schousek, airbag deployment is not simply
`allowed when seat sensors detect a weight above that minimum
`weight of an occupied infant seat. Instead, the airbag
`deployment is inhibited in those situations unless other
`circumstances, other conditions, are met.
`Furthermore, as Judge Plenzler noted, if you try to
`read the other threshold that Schousek describes, that is, the
`maximum weight of the occupied infant seat, as the claimed
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`first threshold, well, then, Schousek doesn't teach anything
`that would qualify as a lock threshold, because there is no
`other threshold in Schousek above that maximum weight in an
`occupied infant seat.
`Your Honors, I would invite your attention briefly
`to our slide number 3. As was noted, I don't think there is any
`real dispute here about what the teachings of Schousek are.
`Just to briefly recap, we know --
`JUDGE PLENZLER: Let me stop you right there
`then and ask you a quick question. Before we get into
`Schousek, it seems like, I think, what we talked about earlier,
`that the dispute is more centered around what does this
`“allowing deployment” language mean in the claim.
`Can you point me to the portion in the
`specification that is related to the first threshold referenced in
`the claim?
`
`MR. FAHMI: Yes, Your Honor. This comes up in
`two places in the specification. The first was, I believe, the
`passage that you identified in column 2 beginning at about line
`55 or so where it is indicated that deployment is always
`allowed for occupants of a certain weight.
`The other portion is beginning at the bottom of
`
`
`
`24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`column 4, in line 67, carrying over to the top of column 5, line
`1, where, again, deployment is allowed when the weight is
`above the first threshold. And it is identified quite clearly in
`figure 9, element 98, where we see that when the weight is
`above the first threshold there is an immediate decision to
`allow.
`
`So those are the points in the specification which
`would bear on that subject.
`JUDGE PLENZLER: The first portion that you
`mentioned at column 2, that language says always allow
`deployment for occupants exceeding 105 pounds.
`Wouldn't that make you think that if you took away
`the word "always" that would mean something different?
`Because the claim doesn't have the word "always," right? It
`just says allow deployment. So in the spec you would have to
`use the word "always" to convey the point that you are trying
`to make right now. Why don't you need that in the claim?
`MR. FAHMI: Because this is the only embodiment
`described in the specification, Your Honor. There are no
`contrary teachings. And when we discuss this passage in
`column 2 with the Petitioner's experts, for example,
`Mr. Andrews in the 292 proceeding, he said, and this is at
`
`
`
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`page 10 of his deposition transcript: That's right. It always
`allows deployment for occupants exceeding 105 pounds.
`So that's what this means, Your Honor. When it
`says allow deployment, it always allows deployment.
`JUDGE PLENZLER: Just an initial question I
`forgot to ask. I know in the petition it was pointed out that
`this patent expired before the petition was even filed.
`In your Patent Owner Response you reference
`broadest reasonable interpretation. Is there a dispute as to
`whether this patent has expired or is it agreed that this thing
`has expired?
`MR. FAHMI: No, it has expired, Your Honor. I
`think our point was broadest reasonable interpretation would
`not be appropriate. We would be operating under the Phillips
`standard.
`
`So, as I mentioned, Your Honor, if we look briefly
`at slide number 3, I don't think there is any real dispute here
`about how Schousek operates. If the total weight of the seat
`occupant is less than the minimum weight of the occupied
`infant seat, the seat is determined to be empty and airbag
`deployment is inhibited. This is explained in Schousek at
`column 5, lines 36 through 39, with reference to element 76
`
`
`
`26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Case IPR2016-00366
`
`
`
`and 78 of figure 5A.
`We also know that if the total weight of the seat
`occupant is greater than the maximum weight of the occupied
`infant seat, airbag deployment is not inhibited. This is
`explained in column 5 of Schousek at lines 32 through 35 with
`reference to element 72 and 74 of the figure.
`And we further know that if the total weight of the
`seat occupant is between the minimum weight of the occupied
`infant seat and the maximum weight of the occupied infant
`seat, then airbag deployment depends on other factors, for
`example, legal requirements where the vehicle is operated and
`where the center of weight distribution is determined to be
`within the seat. This is explained in Schousek at column 5,
`lines 42 through 50, with reference to elements 82, 84 and 86
`of the figure.
`And, Your Honors, it is those teachings that lead to
`the conclusion that the minimum weight of the occupied infant
`seat as taught by Schousek is not equivalent to the recited first
`threshold in claim 17.
`As I mentioned, in Schousek even if the seat
`sensors determine th