Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 18
`Entered: March 20, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`AISIN SEIKI CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
`JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 18
`Entered: March 20, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`AISIN SEIKI CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
`JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Background
`Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to institute an inter
`partes review of claims 17, 21, and 22 (“the challenged claims”) of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 (Ex. 1001, “the ’007 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”).
`In our Decision on Institution, we instituted trial to review the patentability
`of claims 17 and 21 based on anticipation by Schousek1. Paper 7 (“Decision
`to Institute” or “Dec.”).
`Subsequent to institution, Signal IP, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Patent Owner Response. Paper 12 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply to
`the Patent Owner Response. Paper 13 (“Pet. Reply”). Petitioner provides
`testimony from Stephen W. Rouhana, Ph.D. Ex. 1010 (“the Rouhana
`Declaration”).
`An oral hearing was held on February 16, 2017, and a transcript of the
`hearing is included in the record. Paper 17 (“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show,
`by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 17 and 21 of the ’007 patent
`are unpatentable.
`B. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’007 patent is the subject
`of a number of co-pending federal district court cases. Pet. 1–2; Paper 4, 2–
`3.
`
`
`1 U.S. Pat. No. 5,474,327; issued Dec. 12, 1995 (Ex. 1003, “Schousek”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`The ’007 patent is also the subject of IPR2016-00292, and was the
`subject of IPR2015-01004, which was terminated prior to issuance of a final
`written decision (IPR2015-01004, Paper 29). We issued a final written
`decision in IPR2016-00292 concurrently with this decision.
`C. The ’007 Patent
`The ’007 patent is directed to “an airbag system having seat pressure
`
`detectors [mounted] in the seat” and its method of operation. Ex. 1001,
`1:10–12. The ’007 patent explains that one “object of the invention [is] to
`discriminate in a [supplemental inflatable restraint] system between large
`and small seat occupants for a determination of whether an airbag
`deployment should be permitted” and “[a]nother object in such a system is
`to maintain reliable operation in spite of dynamic variations in sensed
`pressures.” Id. at 1:52–57.
`
`The ’007 patent describes “seat sensing system 14 [as] inhibit[ing] air
`bag deployment when a seat is empty or occupied by a small child, while
`allowing deployment when the occupant is large.” Id. at 2:55–58. An
`example is provided where the system is tuned to always inhibit airbag
`deployment for occupants weighing less than 66 pounds, and always allow
`deployment for occupants exceeding 105 pounds. Id. at 2:58–61. The seat
`occupant sensing system includes a microprocessor and sensors mounted in
`a seat monitored by the microprocessor to determine whether to inhibit
`airbag deployment. Id. at 2:61–3:7.
`
`The sensors are periodically sampled and decision measures are
`computed. Id. at 3:39–43. Decision measure computations include, for
`example, “calculating total force and its threshold, sensor load ratings and
`measure, long term average of sensor readings and its threshold.” Id. at
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`3:49–52. A “main decision algorithm” is illustrated in Figure 9 of the ’007
`patent, reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 9 is a flow chart illustrating the determination of an airbag
`deployment decision. The ’007 patent explains that “this algorithm will
`result in an allow or an inhibit decision, but this decision is preliminary,
`subject to subsequent filtering to obtain a final consent to deployment.” Id.
`at 4:59–61. As shown in Figure 9, a decision to allow airbag deployment
`occurs when an “Adult Lock Flag” has been set at step 94 or when the total
`force is above a threshold (“Total Force High”) at step 98. Step 98 provides
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`an “allow” decision for airbag deployment when the total force is above a
`threshold, with no further evaluation required. Id. at 5:1–2.
`Although the decisions noted above are “preliminary,” these decisions
`are described as “preliminary” because a “final judgment of whether to
`consent to deployment is made in the decision filter.” Id. at 5:8–9. The
`decision filter counts allow and inhibit decisions to determine whether final
`consent for deployment is granted. Id. at 5:8–24. None of these decisions
`are decisions to deploy the airbag. Rather, they are decisions to determine
`whether deployment is allowed, should the circumstances for deployment
`arise (e.g., a collision).
`D. Illustrative Claim
`As noted above, Petitioner challenges claims 17 and 21. Claim 17 is
`independent, with claim 21 depending therefrom. Claims 17 and 21 are
`reproduced below:
`17. In a vehicle restraint system having a controller for
`deploying air bags, means for inhibiting and allowing
`deployment according to whether a seat is occupied by a person
`of at least a minimum weight comprising:
`seat sensors responding to the weight of an occupant to
`produce sensor outputs;
`a microprocessor coupled to the sensor outputs and
`programmed to inhibit and allow deployment according
`to sensor response and particularly programmed to
`determine measures represented by individual sensor
`outputs and calculate from the sensor outputs a
`relative weight parameter,
`establish a first threshold of the relative weight
`parameter,
`allow deployment when the relative weight parameter is
`above the first threshold,
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`establish a lock threshold above the first threshold,
`set a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is
`above the lock threshold and deployment has been
`allowed for a given time,
`establish an unlock threshold at a level indicative of an
`empty seat,
`clear the flag when the relative weight parameter is
`below the unlock threshold for a time, and
`allow deployment while the lock flag is set.
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:51–8:8.
`
`21. Means for inhibiting and allowing deployment as
`defined in claim 17 wherein the relative weight parameter is the
`total force detected by all the sensors.
`
`Id. at 8:30–32.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`There is no dispute that the ’007 patent is expired. See, e.g., Pet. 12.
`“[T]he 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). Specifically, because the expired claims of the patent are not subject
`to amendment, we apply the principle set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v.
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)), that “words of a
`claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,’” as
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of
`the invention. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation,
`we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in
`evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d
`1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17).
`In our Decision to Institute, we noted that a district court issued a
`claim construction order, in a case involving the ’007 patent, that determined
`the “relative weight parameter” recited in claim 17 was indefinite. Dec. 6
`(citing Ex. 1009, 60–63). Based on the particular circumstances of this case,
`however, the grounds of unpatentability asserted by Petitioner to the
`challenged claims may be applied, despite the issue of indefiniteness,
`because dependent claim 21 makes clear that the “relative weight parameter”
`at least includes the “total force.” Pet. 14–15; see Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms
`need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to
`resolve the controversy.”). Accordingly, in each of its challenges, Petitioner
`contends that Schousek’s total weight (i.e. force) parameter corresponds to
`the recited “relative weight parameter.” Pet. 19, 25. We are apprised of no
`reason to change our determination that the “relative weight parameter”
`recited in claim 17 includes a parameter representing a total weight of an
`occupant.
`The dispositive issue now before us is whether the “allow deployment
`when the relative weight parameter is above the first threshold” limitation
`recited in claim 17 requires that a decision to “allow deployment” is always
`made “when the relative weight parameter is above the first threshold,” or if
`the claim language only requires that a decision to “allow deployment” is
`made in some circumstances, but not always, “when the relative weight
`parameter is above the first threshold.”
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`Patent Owner contends that the claim requires that the decision to
`“allow deployment” is always made “when the relative weight parameter is
`above the first threshold.” PO Resp. 14 (“According to the claim, when the
`relative weight parameter is above the first threshold, deployment is
`allowed. No other requirements need be met.”). Petitioner disagrees. See
`Pet. Reply 4–7, 12 (contending that claim limitation is met by deployment
`being allowed in some instances, but not always, when the relative weight
`parameter is above the first threshold). For the reasons set forth below, we
`determine that the claim requires the decision to “allow deployment” is
`always made “when the relative weight parameter is above the first
`threshold.”
`Looking to the written description, we note that the ’007 patent only
`describes an “allow deployment” decision always being made when the total
`force (“the relative weight parameter”) is above a “high” threshold (“the first
`threshold”) with no further requirements. See Ex. 1001, 5:1–2, Fig. 9.
`Indeed, there is no dispute that the Specification of the ’007 patent fails to
`describe any scenario where the determination of the total force being above
`the threshold (the “high” threshold) does not always result in the “allow
`deployment” decision. We appreciate that the ’007 patent explains that the
`“allow deployment” decision in Figure 9 is only a “preliminary” decision
`subject to further filtering. Ex. 1001, 4:58–61. Nevertheless, that decision is
`an “allow deployment” decision independent of any further determinations.
`The subsequent filtering is counting “allow deployment” decisions and
`“inhibit deployment” decisions, and does not impose further requirements on
`making those decisions. Id. at 5:8–24.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`In addition to the “allow deployment when the relative weight
`parameter is above the first threshold” limitation, claim 17 further requires,
`inter alia: (1) “a lock threshold above the first threshold,” (2) “set[ting] a
`lock flag when the relative weight parameter is above the lock threshold and
`deployment has been allowed for a given time,” and (3) “allow[ing]
`deployment while the lock flag is set.” Under Petitioner’s proposed reading
`of the claim noted above (see, e.g., Pet. Reply 4–7, 12), “allow[ing]
`deployment while the lock flag is set” necessarily means “allow[ing]
`deployment when the relative weight parameter is above the first threshold”
`because the claim specifically requires that the “lock threshold [is] above the
`first threshold.” Accordingly, reading the claim to only require a decision to
`“allow deployment” in some circumstances, but not always, “when the
`relative weight parameter is above the first threshold,” has no effect on what
`falls within the scope of the claim because that limitation would always be
`met when the further requirement to “allow deployment while the lock is
`set” is met. We determine, therefore, that Petitioner’s proposed reading of
`the claim language at issue would render the “allow deployment when the
`relative weight parameter is above the first threshold” limitation superfluous,
`which counsels against that reading. See Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441
`F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (discussing the claim construction principle
`that meaning should be given to all of a claim’s terms).
`Taking the circumstances discussed above into consideration, we
`determine that the phrase “allow deployment when the relative weight
`parameter is above the first threshold” requires that an “allow deployment”
`decision is always made “when the relative weight parameter is above the
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`first threshold.” That reading of the claim gives meaning to all limitations
`recited in the claim and is in line with the Specification of the ’007 patent.
`B. Anticipation by Schousek
`Petitioner contends that claims 17 and 21 are anticipated by Schousek.
`Pet. 6–7, 16–28.
`Schousek is directed to an airbag restraint system, and describes
`sensors located beneath a seat cover used to determine a total weight
`parameter in its airbag restraint system. Ex. 1003, Abstract, 4:51–60.
`Schousek describes a “minimum threshold” corresponding to a minimum
`weight of an occupied infant seat and a “maximum . . . threshold”
`corresponding to a maximum weight of an occupied infant seat. Id. at 2:31–
`34. Schousek explains that “[i]f the total weight parameter is greater than
`the maximum infant seat weight . . . a decision is made to allow
`deployment,” and “if the total weight parameter is less than the minimum
`weight threshold for an occupied infant seat . . . a decision is made to inhibit
`deployment.” Id. at 5:32–39. Schousek further explains that if the total
`weight parameter is between the minimum and maximum weight thresholds,
`airbag deployment is still allowed if the center of weight distribution is not
`forward of a reference line. Id. at 5:42–50.
`Figure 5A of Schousek, reproduced below, illustrates the subsequent
`conditions required for an allow deployment decision when the total weight
`parameter is between the minimum and maximum weight thresholds.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`
`Figure 5A of Schousek is a flow chart illustrating the determination of an
`airbag deployment decision. As seen at step 72, when the total weight
`parameter is between the minimum and maximum weight thresholds a
`subsequent determination is required at step 82, sometimes resulting in an
`allow deployment decision (step 86) and other times a decision not to allow
`deployment (step 84). Ex. 1003, 5:32–50.
`Although, as noted above, Schousek explains that “[i]f the total
`weight parameter is greater than the maximum infant seat weight . . . a
`decision is made to allow deployment,” Petitioner does not cite Schousek’s
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`“maximum” threshold as corresponding to the “first threshold” in claim 17.
`See Pet. 21, 26–27 (citing Schousek’s “maximum” threshold as
`corresponding to the “lock threshold” in claim 17). Rather, Petitioner cites
`Schousek’s “minimum” threshold as corresponding to the “first threshold” in
`claim 17. Id. at 21, 25–26. As explained above, we determine that claim 17
`requires that an “allow deployment” decision is always made “when the
`relative weight parameter is above the first threshold.” It is clear that an
`allow deployment decision is not always made in Schousek when the total
`weight parameter (the relative weight parameter) is above the minimum
`weight threshold (the first threshold), and Petitioner does not contend
`otherwise. See id. at 21, 25–27.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of
`evidence that claims 17 and 21 are anticipated by Schousek.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has failed to
`establish unpatentability of claims 17 and 21 of the ’007 patent.
`
`IV. ORDER
`For the reasons given, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner has failed to establish unpatentability of
`claims 17 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that parties to the proceeding seeking judicial
`review of this Final Written Decision must comply with the notice and
`service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`William H. Mandir
`David P. Emery
`John M. Bird
`SUGHRUE MION PLLC
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`demery@sughrue.com
`jbird@sughrue.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`Holly J. Atkinson
`Jason A. LaBerteaux
`ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
`tarek.falmi@ascendalaw.com
`holly.atkinson@ascendalaw.com
`jason.laberteaux@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
