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 IPR 2016-0366
`
`Patent No. 6,012,007
`_________________
`
`Title: OCCUPANT DETECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AIR BAG
`SYSTEM
`_________________
`
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`AISIN SEIKI CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`Case IPR 2016-0366
`
`Patent No. 6,012,007
`_________________
`
`Title: OCCUPANT DETECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AIR BAG
`SYSTEM
`_________________
`
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
`
`GROUNDS 2 AND 3 - POINTS MISAPPREHENDED ....................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of Grounds 2 and 3 ..................................................................................2
`
`Points Misapprehended ............................................................................................5
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................... 10
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.71(d), AISIN SEIKI CO., LTD., ("Petitioner")
`
`requests rehearing of the Board's Decision (Paper No. 7, entered June 13, 2016;
`
`"Decision"). The Board reviews a request for rehearing for an abuse of discretion,
`
`which "occurs when a court misunderstands or misapplied the relevant law or
`
`makes clearly erroneous findings of fact." Renda Marine, Inc. v. U.S., 509 F.3d
`
`1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As set forth below, it is respectfully submitted that
`
`this Request for Rehearing satisfies the standard.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner requests rehearing because the Board misunderstood
`
`how Petitioner was relying on Fu with respect to the proposed grounds 2 and 3.
`
`The Decision mirrors a prior Decision in IPR2016-00292 filed by Toyota Motor
`
`Corporation and decided just eleven days prior. It appears that the Board may have
`
`conflated the analysis between these two different petitions. But the Toyota
`
`Petition relied on Fu in a different manner. The Toyota Petition relied on Fu's
`
`methodology for determining whether to turn the air bag on or off (IPR2016-
`
`00292, ("Toyota Petition") Paper No. 7 and Paper No. 16). The Board denied
`
`institution of grounds 2 and 3 of the Toyota Petition based on an allegedly
`
`incomplete analysis as to how Fu's air bag determinations could be incorporated
`
`into Schousek. Although both the present Petition and the Toyota Petition
`
`1
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`proposed grounds 2 and 3 based on Schousek and Fu, the rationale for modifying
`
`Schousek in view of Fu in the present Petition is substantially different. The
`
`Petition here merely relies on Fu for its use of a "latch flag" instead of locking in a
`
`"deploy" or "not deploy" decision as taught by Schousek. (Paper No. 1, entered
`
`December 18, 2015; "Petition"). Thus, Petitioner respectfully submits the Board
`
`misunderstood this point and instead inferred that Petitioner intended to rely on the
`
`same rationale employed in the prior Toyota petition.
`
`For the reasons set forth above and described in further detail below, the
`
`Board is respectfully requested to reconsider grounds 2 and 3 in light of Petitioner's
`
`actual proposed combination of Schousek and Fu.
`
`II. GROUNDS 2 AND 3 - POINTS MISAPPREHENDED
`A. Summary of Grounds 2 and 3
`
`The reliance on Schousek and Fu in the Petition is summarized as follows.
`
`First, Petitioner relied on Schousek as disclosing the full procedure used to
`
`determine whether an airbag should be "deployed" or "not deployed". Fu was not
`
`relied on for these features. For example, Schousek is relied on as disclosing the
`
`seat sensors, the microprocessor, and the various weight thresholds used to
`
`determine whether to deploy the air bag. (Paper No. 1 at 32-35). The result from
`
`Schousek's determination is that the resulting decision is stored as either "Deploy"
`
`2
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`or "Not Deploy". (Id. at 31). It should be noted that Ground 1 based on Schousek
`
`was instituted on the basis that the Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of
`
`succeeding on its challenge to claims 17 and 21. (Paper No. 7 at 11).
`
`Accordingly, the Board's Decision found that Schousek alone teaches the claimed
`
`methodology for determining whether or not to deploy the airbag. (Id.).
`
`Fu, on the other hand, is merely relied on for its use of a latch flag (AB=0 or
`
`AB=1) as a manner of storing the decided result. The output in Fu results in two
`
`conditions, the air bag is on (AB=1) or the air bag is off (AB=0). Fu discloses
`
`that when "the air bag is off" the "air bag latch is 0" at a block 50. Further, Fu
`
`discloses that when "the air bag is on" the "air bag latch is 1" at blocks 68 and 70.
`
`Ex. 1004 at col. 7, ll. 62-63 and col. 8, ll. 29-32. Accordingly, Fu teaches that it is
`
`known to set a latch flag (AB=1 or AB=0) in an algorithm to represent whether an
`
`airbag is in an allowed or inhibited state. Petitioner merely argued that it would
`
`have been obvious to substitute the known latch flag of Fu, which indicates
`
`whether an airbag is on or off, for Schousek's conditions as to whether the airbag is
`
`permitted to deploy or not deploy. (Paper No. 1 at 31).
`
`As noted in the Petition and in the declaration of Dr. Rouhana, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize Fu’s “air bag latch
`
`3
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`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. As explained above, Schousek’s system makes
`
`complete occupancy and airbag enablement determinations - "deploy" airbag and
`
`"not deploy" airbag. While Schousek’s system is able to lock in its determinations,
`
`it does so by locking in the “previous decision” (either "Deploy" or "Not Deploy")
`
`until a different decision is recorded five times in a row. While Schousek does not
`
`expressly describe the use of a “flag” to represent whether the condition is to
`
`"deploy" or "not deploy", such a lock flag was known in the art for the same
`
`purpose and 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". As
`
`noted above, such a modification would have been obvious because substituting
`
`the latch flags air bag is on (AB=1) or the air bag is off (AB=0) for the stored
`
`decisions of "Deploy" or "Not Deploy" is the mere substitution of one known
`
`element for another that provide the same function. Both indicate the current
`
`status of the airbag. Use of either of these methods produces the very same result:
`
`avoiding a change in occupancy determinations in view of temporary fluctuations
`
`in the force/weight being measured by seat sensors. One of ordinary skill in the art
`
`4
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`would view Schousek’s and Fu’s methods for dealing with these circumstances to
`
`be interchangeable, and would thus have every reason to believe that incorporation
`
`of Fu’s “flag” into Schousek would succeed. See Ex. 1010, Rouhana Dec. at ¶64.
`
`Both Schousek and Fu are also in the same technical field (systems for
`
`automotive seat occupancy determination and airbag control) and are directed to
`
`solving the same problem (differentiating between various different types of seat
`
`occupancies and determining whether to deploy or not deploy the airbag). This
`
`would further motivate one skilled in the art to make the combination. See Ex.
`
`1010, Rouhana Dec. at ¶65.
`
`B. Points Misapprehended
`
`Petitioner contends the Board misapprehended the degree to which Fu was
`
`relied on in the Petition. The Board inferred that the Petition was relying on Fu's
`
`procedure to determine whether to turn an air bag on or off. In the analysis of
`
`grounds 2 and 3, as noted above, the Decision mirrors a prior Decision in
`
`IPR2016-00292 filed by Toyota Motor Corporation and decided just eleven days
`
`prior. The Toyota Petition relied on Fu in a more comprehensive manner,
`
`including how Fu determines whether to turn the air bag on or off. (IPR2016-
`
`00292, ("Corrected Petition") Paper No. 7 and Paper No. 16). For example, pages
`
`5
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`31-35 of the prior Toyota Petition laid out details of Fu's methodology and Fu is
`
`cited in nearly every feature of the claim charts. (IPR2016-00292, Paper No. 7 at
`
`39-43). This methodology was not relied on in the present Petition. As noted
`
`above, the Petition here relied on Fu for only two features in the claim charts, both
`
`of which recite the "lock flag" feature. Nowhere is Fu's disclosure relied on to
`
`teach the claimed use of a sensor, the weight thresholds or making air bag
`
`enablement determinations. To the contrary, 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 (AB=0=Air Bag Off; AB=1=Air Bag On).
`
`Notably, as with the Toyota Petition, the Board's Decision not to institute on
`
`grounds 2 and 3 presented here was based on an allegedly incomplete analysis of
`
`how Fu's procedure regarding air bag determinations could be incorporated into
`
`Schousek. But, this analysis is intentionally absent in the present Petition because:
`
`(1) Schousek, not Fu, is relied on for these teachings; and (2) Petitioner did not
`
`intend to rely on Fu for these teachings. Instead, Petitioner merely relies on Fu's
`
`use of a "latch flag" (AB=0=Air Bag Off; AB=1=Air Bag On) for the
`
`straightforward replacement of stored decisions "deploy" or "not deploy" that are
`
`determined solely based on Schousek's logic.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`In the Decision, the Board denied institution of grounds 2 and 3 noting that
`
`"[w]e decline to speculate and fill gaps in Petitioner's challenge." (Decision at 13).
`
`In support of this determination, the Board opined that:
`
`Rather than clearly addressing the claim limitations require
`certain conditions before a lock flag is set, Petition 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.
`
`(Decision at 13).
`
`Petitioner respectfully disagrees and submits that the Petition clearly shows
`
`what portions of Fu are relied on in the claim charts. (Petition at 32-35 and 39-41).
`
`Again, notably absent from these charts is any reliance on Fu's procedures as
`
`supporting features relating to whether to allow or not allow deployment of an air
`
`bag - see features 17(a)-17(f), 17(h) and 17(j). These are the features that relate to
`
`seat sensors, microprocessor inhibit and allow procedures, and several relative
`
`weight parameter thresholds. The instant Petition does not cite to Fu for these
`
`features because Schousek is the sole reference relied on to teach these features.
`
`In contrast, Fu is only cited to bolster two of the charted features relating to
`
`"setting a lock flag" and "clear[ing] a lock flag." (Petition at 33, 34). Moreover, to
`
`7
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`clearly demonstrate which portions of Fu were relied on in the Petition, Petitioner
`
`bolded certain features to aid in an understanding of such intended reliance, i.e.,
`
`AB=0=Air Bag Off; AB=1=Air Bag On; the air bag is off and the air bag latch flag
`
`is 0; and the air bag actuation circuit 48 should be turned "on" . . . the air bag latch
`
`flag should be high. (Id.). These portions merely relate to how the system saves
`
`the result of an air bag determination. Consistent with this contention, the Petition
`
`describes "[a]s explained above, Schousek's system makes occupancy and airbag
`
`enablement determinations 'deploy' airbag and 'not deploy' airbag." (Petition at
`
`31). The modification based on Fu explains:
`
`While Schousek does not expressly describe the use of a "flag"
`to represent whether the condition is to "deploy" or "not deploy", it
`would have been obvious to modify Schousek to use a dedicated "lock
`flag," as opposed to storing a term such as "Deploy" or "No Deploy".
`(Petition at 31).
`
`Lastly, the Petition again emphasizes:
`
`Such a modification would be obvious because substituting the
`latch flag air bag is on (AB=1) or the air bag is off (AB=0) for the
`stored decisions of "Deploy" or "Not Deploy" is the mere
`substitution of one known element for another that provides the same
`function."
`(Petition at 31).
`
`Further absent from this discussion and rationale for modifying Schousek is:
`
`(1) any concession that Schousek fails to teach any claimed feature relating to
`
`8
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`determine whether to deploy or not deploy; and (2) any logical rational for
`
`incorporating Fu's determining logic into the determination procedure of Schousek.
`
`In conclusion, as to grounds 2 and 3, Petitioner requests rehearing because
`
`the Petition requesting inter partes review (Paper No. 1, entered December 18,
`
`2015) did not rely on Fu's procedure for determining whether to deploy or not
`
`deploy, i.e., the use of sensors 42 and 44 or how it is determined whether to set the
`
`latch flag. While these portions were discussed in the present Petition, they were
`
`merely provided to give a general background of how the latch flag is used in the
`
`Fu reference. The reliance on Fu is clearly set forth in the rationale for modify
`
`Schousek and is emphasized in the claim charts.
`
`Finally, the portion of Patent Owner's comments repeated on page 13 of the
`
`Decision are irrelevant as this logic is not required or relied on to show
`
`obviousness of claims 17, 21 and 22 as described in the Petition.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`For the above reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests rehearing of grounds
`
`2 and 3 presented in the Petition.
`
`
`
`Sughrue Mion, PLLC
`Telephone: (202) 293-7060
`Facsimile: (202) 293-7860
`
`WASHINGTON OFFICE
`
`23373
`CUSTOMER NUMBER
`
`Date: June 27, 2016
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/William H. Mandir/
`
`William H. Mandir
`Registration No. 32,156
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the attached Request for Rehearing
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 was sent via electronic mail to the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`Holly J. Atkinson
`Jason A. LaBerteaux
`ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
`333 W San Carlos St.
`Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`holly.atkinson@ascendalaw.com
`jason.laberteaux@ascendalaw.com
`
`Counsel of Record for U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 27, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
` _/David P. Emery/
`David P. Emery
`Registration No. 55,154
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
