`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: June 13, 2016
`
`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.
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.”).
`Signal IP, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which
`provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is
`a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons given
`below, we institute an inter partes review in this proceeding with respect to
`claims 17 and 21, but not with respect to claim 22.
`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.
`
`The ’007 patent was also the subject of IPR2015-01004 (now
`terminated due to settlement), for which trial was instituted on multiple
`grounds, including anticipation of claims 1–3, 5, 9, 17, 20, and 21 based on
`anticipation by Schousek1. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Signal IP,
`Inc., Case IPR2015-01004, slip op. at 18 (PTAB Oct. 1, 2015) (Paper 11).
`The ’007 patent is currently the subject of IPR2016-00292, for which trial
`was instituted for claims 17 and 21 based on anticipation by Schousek.
`
`
`1 U.S. Pat. No. 5,474,327; issued Dec. 12, 1995 (Ex. 1003, “Schousek”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Signal IP, Inc., Case IPR2016-00292, slip op. at 14
`(PTAB June 2, 2016) (Paper 16).
`C. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability and Evidence of Record
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based on the following grounds (Pet. 6–7, 16–60).
`References
`Basis
`Claims Challenged
`Schousek
`§ 102
`17 and 21
`
`Schousek and Fu2
`
`Schousek, Fu, and Cashler3
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`17 and 21
`
`22
`
`Blackburn4, JP 2585, and Schousek § 103
`
`17 and 21
`
`22
`
`§ 103
`
`Blackburn, JP 258, Schousek, and
`Cashler
`Petitioner also provides testimony from Stephen W. Rouhana, Ph.D.
`Ex. 1010 (“the Rouhana Declaration”).
`D. 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
`
`
`2 U.S. Pat. No. 5,848,661; issued Dec. 15, 1998 (Ex. 1004, “Fu”).
`3 U.S. Pat. No. 5,732,375, iss. Mar. 24, 1998 (Ex. 1008, “Cashler”).
`4 U.S. Pat. No. 5,232,243, iss. Aug. 3, 1993 (Ex. 1005, “Blackburn”).
`5 Japanese Patent Application No. 09-127258 (Ex. 1006, “JP 258”). Exhibit
`1007 is a certified translation of JP 258, and citations to this reference refer
`to its translation (Ex. 1007).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`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 to inhibit 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
`3:49–52. An “Adult Lock Flag” can be set to always allow airbag
`deployment. Id. at 4:40–41. 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” (i.e., the threshold used as the minimum
`allowable value for airbag deployment), and “an unlock threshold[,] which
`represents an empty seat.” Id. at 4:41–44. A lock timer is compared to a
`lock delay to determine when to set the “Adult Lock Flag.” Id. at 4:44–46,
`Fig. 8. “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
`4:46–50.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`E. Illustrative Claim
`As noted above, Petitioner challenges claims 17, 21, and 22. Claim
`17 is independent, with claims 21 and 22 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,
`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.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`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
`Petitioner acknowledges that the ’007 patent expired on December 1,
`2015. See 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 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).
`For purposes of this Decision, the only term requiring specific
`discussion is the “relative weight parameter” recited in claim 17.
`On April 17, 2015, a claim construction order was issued by the
`district court in litigation involving the ’007 patent, determining the “relative
`weight parameter” recited in claim 17 to be indefinite. Ex. 1009, 60–63.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`Based on the particular circumstances of this case, however, we are able to
`apply the grounds of unpatentability asserted by Petitioner to the challenged
`claims in view of the further definition of the “relative weight parameter”
`provided in dependent claim 21 (i.e., “total force”). See Pet. 9. 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.”). For example, in its
`anticipation challenge based on Schousek, Petitioner’s contentions regarding
`the recited “relative weight parameter” are based on Schousek’s total weight
`parameter. Pet. 19–20, 25.
`For purposes of this Decision, we determine that the “relative weight
`parameter,” recited in claim 17, includes a parameter representing a total
`weight of an occupant. At this stage of the proceeding, we determine that no
`other particular term requires an express construction in order to conduct
`properly our analysis of the prior art.
`B. Anticipation by Schousek
`Petitioner contends that claims 17 and 21 are anticipated by Schousek.
`Pet. 6, 16–28. As indicated above, we previously instituted trial in
`IPR2015-01004 for claims 17 and 21 (as well as other claims) based on
`anticipation by Schousek, and also instituted trial for that ground in
`IPR2016-00292. We have reviewed the arguments and evidence presented
`by both parties in this proceeding thus far, and are persuaded that Petitioner
`has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing at trial on its
`challenge to claims 17 and 21 as being anticipated by Schousek. This
`Decision addresses specifically only those portions of Petitioner’s challenge
`that Patent Owner disputes in its Preliminary Response. We note that Patent
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`Owner’s arguments in response to this anticipation challenge appear to be
`similar to those presented in IPR2016-00292.
`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.
`Schousek describes monitoring the consistency of decisions regarding
`airbag deployment (i.e., a fault detection procedure), and provides an
`example where the decision to allow deployment is updated every five
`seconds. Id. at 5:51–6:5. In this example, a loop occurs where the decision
`on whether to deploy an airbag is monitored repeatedly. Id. at 5:53–55, Fig.
`5b. If the decision (deploy or no deployment) is the same for five
`consecutive iterations, that decision is used to determine airbag deployment
`status and is labelled the “previous decision.” Id. at 5:58–61, Fig. 5b. If five
`consecutive decisions are not the same, airbag deployment status is not
`changed, and the previous decision is used again for airbag deployment
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`status. Id. at 5:61–63. When the “previous decision” is a decision to allow
`airbag deployment, for example, and five consecutive subsequent decisions
`to inhibit deployment occur due to the total weight parameter being below
`the minimum infant weight threshold, the “previous decision” is set to
`inhibit airbag deployment. Id. at 5:53–61.
`Petitioner cites Schousek’s discussion of the “minimum weight
`threshold” as corresponding to “establishing a first threshold” in claim 17
`and Schousek’s discussion of the “maximum weight . . . threshold[]” as
`corresponding to “establish[ing] a lock threshold” in claim 17. Pet. 19–21,
`25–27. Petitioner cites Schousek’s discussion of fault detection as
`corresponding to “set[ting] a lock flag” and “clear[ing] the lock flag” in
`claim 17. Id. at 22–23, 27–28.
`Patent Owner responds that “the minimum weight of an occupied
`infant seat, as taught by Schousek, is not equivalent to the recited ‘first
`threshold of the relative weight parameter’” because Schousek additionally
`requires that the center of weight distribution is not forward of a reference
`line to permit air bag deployment. Prelim. Resp. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003,
`5:39–50). Patent Owner’s argument is unpersuasive because, as Patent
`Owner appears to acknowledge (see id.), Schousek discloses instances where
`airbag deployment is permitted when the total weight parameter is above the
`minimum weight threshold (see Ex. 1003, 5:42–50 (discussing
`circumstances where airbag deployment is allowed when total weight
`parameter is between the minimum and maximum weight thresholds)).
`Patent Owner’s argument that the claim somehow prohibits further
`restrictions on airbag deployment (see Prelim. Resp. 13) is not supported by
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`the claim language, and Patent Owner fails to identify anything else in the
`record that imposes such a restriction.
`Patent Owner additionally contends that “the other threshold taught by
`Schousek—the maximum weight of an occupied infant seat—is not
`equivalent to the ‘first threshold of the relative weight parameter’ recited in
`claim 17.” Id. at 14. This is also unpersuasive because, as noted above,
`Petitioner contends that Schousek’s maximum weight threshold corresponds
`to the “lock threshold” recited in claim 17, not the “first threshold.” See Pet.
`19–21, 26–27.
`Patent Owner’s remaining contentions in response to Petitioner’s
`anticipation challenge based on Schousek focus on the “set[ting] a lock flag”
`and “clear[ing] the lock flag” limitation in claim 17. See Prelim. Resp. 16–
`19. Patent Owner explains that in Schousek’s fault detection procedure,
`“irrespective of the value of the stored ‘previous decision,’ whenever the
`seat sensors of Schousek sense a weight such that five consecutive, common
`inhibit/no inhibit decisions are reached, that determination is forwarded to
`the air bag deployment module” and “[i]n some instances, this will be a
`decision to inhibit (not allow) air bag deployment.” Id. at 16–17. We note
`that in other instances, however, the “previous decision” will be to allow
`airbag deployment. Patent Owner fails to explain persuasively why this
`does not disclose “set[ting] a lock flag” as recited in claim 17.
`As for “clear[ing] the lock flag,” Patent Owner’s contentions are
`unclear. See Prelim. Resp. 18–19. Rather than clearly addressing why
`Schousek fails to disclose clearing a lock flag, Patent Owner explains that
`Schousek states that a decision to inhibit deployment is sent to
`the air bag deployment module, and also set as a “previous
`decision,” not when a relative weight parameter falls below an
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`unlock threshold for a period of time, but rather when the
`decision to inhibit deployment of the airbag remains unchanged
`over five consecutive fault monitoring loops.
`Id. Patent Owner fails to explain persuasively, however, why “clear[ing] the
`lock flag” is not disclosed by Schousek’s fault detection procedure when the
`“previous decision” is a decision to allow airbag deployment, and five
`consecutive subsequent decisions to inhibit deployment occur, resulting in
`the “previous decision” being set to inhibit airbag deployment (i.e., clearing
`the “previous decision” setting of allow airbag deployment). Ex. 1003,
`5:53–61.
`Based on our review of the record before us, we are persuaded that
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of succeeding on its
`challenge to claims 17 and 21 based on anticipation by Schousek.
`C. Obviousness over Schousek and Fu
`Petitioner contends that “in the event that it is determined that
`Schousek fails to disclose the setting ‘the lock flag’ or clearing ‘the flag’, the
`Petitioner relies on Fu to show that setting an air bag latch flag is obvious in
`air bag occupant sensing systems,” and claims 17 and 21 would have been
`obvious over the combination of Schousek and Fu. Pet. 29. We have
`reviewed the arguments and evidence presented by both parties in this
`proceeding thus far, and are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing at trial on its challenge to claims 17 and
`21 as having been obvious over the combination of Schousek and Fu.
`In response to Petitioner’s contentions regarding Schousek, Patent
`Owner reiterates arguments set forth in response to Petitioner’s challenge
`based on anticipation by Schousek, which are unpersuasive for the reasons
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`indicated above. Patent Owner, however, provides additional arguments
`against Petitioner’s proposed combination of Fu with Schousek.
`Fu is directed to “[a] vehicle seat assembly comprising occupant
`sensing systems for use in . . . air bag actuation systems.” Ex. 1004,
`Abstract. Fu discusses use of a “latch flag” to maintain an airbag in an
`enabled condition. Id. at 7:23–8:33. Fu explains that the airbag latch flag is
`set when its seat cushion transducers “are both experiencing pressure as
`tested at block 66” in Figure 7b. Id. at 8:29–32, Fig. 7b. Block 66 in Figure
`7b evaluates whether the pressure sensed by the seat transducers is “H.” Fu
`describes only two pressure levels, “L” (no pressure) and “H” (some
`unspecified level of pressure presence). Id. at 7:36, 7:58–60.
`In its challenge, Petitioner cites Fu as teaching setting and clearing a
`lock flag and proposes modifying Schousek accordingly. Pet. 29–35.
`Petitioner contends that
`[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art as of June 1997 would have been
`motivated to utilize Fu’s “air bag latch flag” and flag clearing
`procedure with Schousek’s occupancy determination and airbag
`enablement system to arrive, with a reasonable expectation of
`success, at the subject matter of claims 17 and 21.
`
`Id. at 30 (footnote omitted). Petitioner further contends that “it would have
`been obvious to modify Schousek to use a dedicated ‘lock flag,’ as opposed
`to storing a term such as ‘Deploy’ or ‘Not Deploy’ . . . because substituting
`the latch flags . . . for the stored decisions of ‘Deploy’ or ‘Not Deploy’ is the
`mere substitution of one known element for another that provide the same
`function.” Id. at 31. Petitioner additionally reasons that
`“[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would view Schousek’s and Fu’s methods
`for dealing with [similar] circumstances to be interchangeable, and would
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`thus have every reason to believe that incorporation of Fu’s ‘flag’ into
`Schousek would succeed.” Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 64).
`Patent Owner contends that in Fu “the latch flag is set when sensors
`42 and 44 output a high pressure indication, irrespective of whether or not
`airbag deployment has been allowed for any previous period of time.”
`Prelim. Resp. 25. Patent Owner concludes that
`[a]ccordingly, even if the latch flag of Fu were incorporated in
`the system described by Schousek . . . a latch flag would be set
`irrespective of whether or not airbag deployment has been
`allowed for any previous period of time . . . [and] setting of the
`latch flag would not depend upon a relative weight parameter
`being above a lock threshold.
`Id. Patent Owner’s contentions highlight the problem with Petitioner’s
`challenge. Rather than clearly addressing the claim limitations requiring
`certain conditions before a lock flag is set, Petitioner discusses, in a general
`manner, “utilize[ing] Fu’s ‘air bag latch flag’ and flag clearing procedure” in
`Schousek. See, e.g., Pet. 30. Petitioner fails to explain clearly how or why
`the proposed combination would “set a lock flag when the relative weight
`parameter is above the lock threshold” with the “lock threshold above the
`first threshold” as required by claim 17. Fu does not appear to teach this
`feature on its own, as it provides a determination of either no pressure (“L”)
`or some unspecified pressure presence (“H”). See Ex. 1004, 7:36, 7:58–60.
`Petitioner also fails to indicate, in any specific manner, how Fu’s teachings
`regarding the latch flag procedure could be applied to Schousek’s fault
`protection procedure, such that the resulting combination would meet the
`conditions required by claim 17. We decline to speculate and fill gaps in
`Petitioner’s challenge. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b).
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`To the extent Petitioner proposes to simply substitute Schousek’s
`
`“previous decision” (i.e., deploy or not deploy) with a lock flag, Petitioner
`fails to explain persuasively why one skilled in the art would make such a
`modification. Based on the record before us, it appears that such a
`modification would be the inclusion of an additional step for no purpose
`other than reconstructing “set[ting] a lock flag” as recited in claim 17.
`
`For these reasons, Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable
`likelihood of succeeding at trial on its challenge to claims 17 and 21 as
`having been obvious over the combination of Schousek and Fu.
`D. Obviousness over Schousek, Fu, and Cashler
`Petitioner challenges claim 22, which depends from claim 17, based
`on obviousness over Schousek, Fu, and Cashler. Pet. 35–41. This challenge
`suffers from the same deficiencies discussed above relative to the challenge
`to claim 17 based on obviousness over Schousek and Fu (“Ground 2”). See
`id. at 35 (“Schousek and Fu disclose all of the features of claim 17 from
`which claim 22 depends as set forth above in Ground 2.”). Accordingly
`Petitioner also has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on
`its challenge to claim 22 based on the combination of Schousek, Fu, and
`Cashler.
`E. Obviousness over Blackburn, JP 258, and Schousek
`Petitioner additionally challenges claims 17 and 21 based on
`obviousness over Blackburn, JP 258, and Schousek. Pet. 41–57. In this
`challenge, Petitioner relies on Blackburn teaching the majority of limitations
`recited in claim 17. Id. We have reviewed the arguments and evidence
`presented by both parties in this proceeding thus far, and are not persuaded
`that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing at trial
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`on its challenge to claims 17 and 21 as having been obvious over the
`combination of Blackburn, JP 258, and Schousek.
`Blackburn describes an occupant restraint system in a vehicle
`including an airbag. Ex. 1005, 3:30–32. More specifically, Blackburn
`describes operation of its occupant restraint system where an airbag is
`initially in a condition where deployment is permitted and seat sensors are
`repeatedly monitored to determine whether an occupant is present in the
`seat. Id. at 13:26–34. If it is determined that an occupant is not present in
`the seat, the airbag is disabled. Id. at 13:40–57. If it is determined that an
`occupant is present in the seat, the airbag remains in the enabled condition.
`Id. at 13:58–60. After the airbag is initially maintained in the enabled
`condition based on occupant detection, the system further evaluates the
`position of the occupant in the seat to determine whether to maintain the
`airbag in the enabled condition and, if so, whether the airbag orientation
`should be adjusted. Id. at 13:67–14:14.
`Claim 17 requires “establish[ing] a lock threshold” and “set[ting] a
`lock flag when the relative weight parameter is above the lock threshold and
`deployment has been allowed for a given time.” Although Petitioner
`acknowledges that “Blackburn does not expressly disclose setting a lock flag
`or an allow decision based on exceeding the 50th percentile weight for ‘a
`given time,’” Petitioner relies on Blackburn teaching “establish[ing] a lock
`threshold.” Pet. 43–45, 54. Specifically, Petitioner cites the occupant size
`of 50th percentile at step 492 of Blackburn’s Figure 22 as corresponding to
`the “lock threshold.” Pet. 44. Petitioner cites the occupant size of 5th
`percentile at step 484 of Blackburn’s Figure 22 as corresponding to the “first
`threshold,” so that the “lock threshold” (50th percentile) is greater than the
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`“first threshold” (5th percentile) as required by claim 17. Id. Patent Owner
`responds that “[a]ccording to Blackburn, airbag deployment is enabled
`according to whether or not a human occupant is determined to be in the
`seat” and “[c]onsiderations of the occupant’s weight affect how deployment
`may occur, but do not affect the decision about whether or not to enable
`deployment in the first place.” Prelim. Resp. 32.
`Indeed, Blackburn explains that a decision to have the airbag in an
`enabled condition is made before steps 484 and 492 are even reached (i.e., a
`decision to enable the airbag is made independent of steps 484, 492). Ex.
`1005, 13:26–15:25, Fig. 20. Petitioner’s selection of Blackburn’s 50th
`percentile criterion in step 492 as the “lock threshold” appears to be nothing
`more than an arbitrary selection of an airbag inflation condition in a
`reconstruction attempt to meet claim 17. See Pet. 43–44. Petitioner offers
`no reasoned explanation as to how this 50th percentile criterion forms a “lock
`threshold.” Rather, Petitioner simply asserts that “steps 484 and 492 of FIG.
`22 show different thresholds based on the weight of an occupant, which if
`satisfied, permit airbag deployment,” and concludes that “in this example
`step 484 . . . corresponds to the recited ‘first threshold’ and step 492 . . .
`corresponds to the recited ‘lock threshold above the first threshold,’” without
`further explanation. Id. As noted above, however, these steps are not used
`to determine whether to allow airbag deployment. They are used to
`determine how to deploy the airbag once a decision to deploy the airbag has
`already been made. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Blackburn
`teaches “establish[ing] a lock threshold” as required by claim 17.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`The additional teachings from JP 258 and Schousek cited by
`Petitioner and their proposed combination with Blackburn do not cure this
`deficiency. See Pet. 45–49.
`For these reasons, Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable
`likelihood of succeeding at trial on its challenge to claims 17 and 21 as
`having been obvious over the combination of Blackburn, JP 258, and
`Schousek.
`F. Obviousness over Blackburn, JP 258, Schousek, and Cashler
`Petitioner challenges claim 22, which depends from claim 17, based
`on obviousness over Blackburn, JP 258, Schousek, and Cashler. Pet. 57–60.
`This challenge suffers from the same deficiencies discussed above relative to
`the challenge to claim 17 based on obviousness over Blackburn, JP 258, and
`Schousek (“Ground 4”). See id. at 57 (“Blackburn, Schousek and JP 258
`disclose all of the features of claim 17 from which claim 22 depends as set
`forth above in Ground 4.”). Accordingly Petitioner also has failed to
`establish a reasonable likelihood of success on its challenge to claim 22
`based on the combination of Blackburn, JP 258, Schousek, and Cashler.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 17 and 21, but not
`claim 22, of the ’007 patent.
`The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of
`any challenged claims.
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`IV. ORDER
`For the reasons given, it is
`ORDERED that an inter partes review is instituted as to claims 17
`and 21 based on anticipation by Schousek;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`partes review of the ʼ007 patent is hereby instituted commencing on the
`entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds
`identified above. No other grounds are authorized.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`19
`
`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
`AisinIPR@sughrue.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`Holly J. Atkinson
`Jason A. LaBerteaux
`Ascenda Law Group, PC
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`holly.atkinson@ascendalaw.com
`jason.laberteaux@ascendalaw.com
`patents@ascendalaw.com