Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: June 27, 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
`Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: June 27, 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
`Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`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 to Institute (Paper 7, “Decision to Institute” or “Dec.”), we
`
`instituted a trial to review the patentability of claims 17 and 21 based on
`
`anticipation of those claims by Schousek1 (Ground 1), but denied institution
`
`as to Petitioner’s challenges based on obviousness of claims 17 and 21 over
`
`Schousek and Fu2 (Ground 2), claim 22 over Schousek, Fu, and Cashler3
`
`(Ground 3), claims 17 and 21 over Blackburn4, JP 2585, and Schousek
`
`(Ground 4), and claim 22 over Blackburn, JP 258, Schousek, and Cashler
`
`(Ground 5). Dec. 18. Petitioner requests rehearing of the Decision to
`
`Institute with respect to Grounds 2 and 3. Paper 9 (“Request” or “Req.
`
`Reh’g”). Having considered Petitioner’s arguments, Petitioner’s Request is
`
`denied for the reasons provided below.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`The standard of review for rehearing requests is set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71(d), which states:
`
`
`1 U.S. Pat. No. 5,474,327; issued Dec. 12, 1995 (Ex. 1003, “Schousek”).
`2 U.S. Pat. No. 5,848,661; issued Dec. 15, 1998 (Ex. 1004, “Fu”).
`3 U.S. Pat. No. 5,732,375; issued Mar. 24, 1998 (Ex. 1008, “Cashler”).
`4 U.S. Pat. No. 5,232,243; issued 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).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with
`the party challenging the decision. The request must
`specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board
`misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each
`matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or
`a reply.
`
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`Petitioner’s Request contends that we “misunderstood how Petitioner
`
`was relying on Fu with respect to the proposed grounds 2 and 3.” Req.
`
`Reh’g 1. Specifically, the Request contends that “the Board
`
`misapprehended the degree to which Fu was relied on in the Petition,” and
`
`that “the only Fu features relied on in the present Petition are to replace the
`
`storing of decisions ‘deploy’ and ‘not deploy’ in Schousek with a latch flag
`
`setting.” Req. Reh’g 5–6. Accordingly, the Request appears to be based on
`
`our alleged failure to address a proposed modification of Schousek’s
`
`teachings “to replace the storing of decisions ‘deploy’ and ‘not deploy’ in
`
`Schousek with a latch flag setting.” Id. Petitioner identifies our alleged
`
`error on page 13 of the Decision to Institute. See id. at 7, 9 (citing Dec. 13).
`
`Initially, we note that the Petition proposed more than simply
`
`“replac[ing] the storing of decisions ‘deploy’ and ‘not deploy’ in Schousek
`
`with a latch flag setting.” See Pet. 30 (“One 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.”) (footnote omitted). Accordingly, our Decision
`
`to Institute addressed more than simply replacing deploy/not deploy
`
`decisions in Schousek with Fu’s latch flag. See Dec. 12–13.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`
`Nevertheless, the Decision to Institute specifically considered the
`
`possibility that the Petition also proposed modifying Schousek simply to
`
`include Fu’s latch flag in place of Schousek’s deploy/not deploy decisions.
`
`For example, page 14 of our Decision to Institute explained that
`
`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.
`
`Dec. 14. The entire basis for Petitioner’s Request is our alleged failure to
`
`consider an argument set forth in the Petition. Petitioner’s Request fails to
`
`even note, however, the discussion from page 14 of our Decision to Institute
`
`where we explicitly consider and address that argument. Petitioner’s failure
`
`to address that discussion is fatal to its Request because it demonstrates that
`
`we clearly considered the alternate argument, which Petitioner’s Request
`
`alleges was not considered. Accordingly, Petitioner has not identified any
`
`matter we misapprehended or overlooked.
`
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`For the reasons given, it is
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`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.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`holly.atkinson@ascendalaw.com
`jason.laberteaux@ascendalaw.com
`
`5
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
