throbber
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
`_______________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1. Introduction. .............................................................................................. 1
`
`2. Overview of the ‘007 Patent. .................................................................... 2
`
`3. Argument. .................................................................................................. 8
`
`A. Claim Construction. ............................................................................. 8
`
`B. The Challenged Claims Are Not Anticipated by Schousek. ............ 11
`
`i. Overview of Schousek. ........................................................................ 11
`
`ii. The Minimum Weight of an Occupied Infant Seat Taught by Schousek
`is Not Equivalent to the First Threshold of a Relative Weight Parameter
`Recited in the Challenged Claims. ......................................................... 13
`
`iii. The Maximum Weight of an Occupied Infant Seat Taught by
`Schousek is Not Equivalent to the First Threshold of a Relative Weight
`Parameter Recited in the Challenged Claims. ....................................... 16
`
`iv. Schousek Does Not Teach Setting a Lock Flag When a Relative
`Weight Parameter is Above a Lock Threshold and Air Bag Deployment
`has Been Allowed for a Given Time, as Recited in the Challenged
`Claims. ................................................................................................... 17
`
`v. Schousek Does Not Teach Clearing a Lock Flag When a Relative
`Weight Parameter is Below an Unlock Threshold for a Time, as Recited
`in the Challenged Claims. ...................................................................... 20
`
`vi. Schousek Does Not Allow Deployment of an Airbag When the
`Relative Weight Parameter is Above the First Threshold, as Recited in
`the Challenged Claims. .......................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4. Conclusion. .............................................................................................. 23
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................. 10
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................... 9
`
`In re Cortright,
`165 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................... 9
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................... 9
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................... 9
`
`Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co.,
`730 F.2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ................................................................. 17
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................. 17
`
`Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co.,
`868 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ................................................................. 15
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Va. Innov. Scis., Inc.,
`Case IPR2013-00569 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2013) .............................................. 8
`
`Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm.,
`339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................... 14, 20, 21, 23
`
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 112(d) ................................................................................. passim
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2001
`
`
`
`Transcript of deposition of Dr. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`1. Introduction.
`
`The Board should confirm the patentability of claims 17 and 21 of
`
`U.S. Patent 6,012,007 (the “’007 Patent”) because Schousek fails to teach or
`
`suggest allowing deployment of air bags when a relative weight parameter
`
`used by a vehicle restraint system is above a first threshold, establishing a
`
`lock threshold above the first threshold, and setting a lock flag when the
`
`relative weight parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has
`
`been allowed for a given time. As explained below, and contrary to
`
`Petitioner’s contentions, the minimum weight of an occupied infant seat as
`
`used by Schousek is not equivalent to the first threshold of the relative
`
`weight parameter recited in the challenged claims. This is because in
`
`Schousek, air bag deployment is not allowed when seat sensors detect a
`
`weight above that minimum weight of an occupied infant seat. Instead, air
`
`bag deployment is inhibited in such circumstances unless other conditions
`
`are met.
`
`
`
`Further, even if one were to equate the minimum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat as used by Schousek with the first threshold of the
`
`relative weight parameter recited in the challenged claims, it would still be
`
`the case that Schousek fails to teach or suggest establishing a lock threshold
`
`above the first threshold, and setting a lock flag when the relative weight
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for
`
`a given time. Instead, in the system described by Schousek, air bag
`
`deployment is permitted or inhibited irrespective of whether or not
`
`deployment has been allowed for a given time. Indeed, in some instances air
`
`bag deployment may be permitted even if previously such deployment was
`
`inhibited, or even if the seat sensors determine that a seat occupant weighs
`
`less than a purported “lock threshold.”
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to prove the unpatentability of any
`
`of the challenged claims and the Board should find in favor of Patent Owner
`
`on all issues nominated for trial.
`
`
`
`2. Overview of the ‘007 Patent.
`The ’007 Patent discloses a method of controlling airbag deployment
`
`using pressure sensors to allow or inhibit airbag deployment based on
`
`passenger weight. Ex. 1001 at Abstract; Ex. 2001 at 8:16 – 9:15. According
`
`to the specification, air bag deployment is inhibited when a seat is empty or
`
`occupied by a small child. Deployment is allowed when the seat is occupied
`
`by a larger passenger. Ex. 1001 at 2:55-58; Ex. 2001 at 9:16 – 10:5.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’007 patent (below) shows a typical airbag (or
`
`supplemental inflatable restraint -- “SIR”) system:
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:15-16, 2:18-19; Ex. 2001 at 10:11 – 11:2. An accelerometer
`
`(15) senses an impending crash and a microprocessor (16) receives signals
`
`from the accelerometer and determines whether to deploy an air bag. Ex.
`
`1001 at 2:46-49; Ex. 2001 at 11:3-16. On the other side of the figure, seat
`
`occupant sensors (26, 28) communicate with a separate microprocessor (22),
`
`which determines whether airbag deployment should be inhibited. Ex. 1001
`
`at 3:4-7; Ex. 2001 at 11:17 – 12:4. The occupant sensors are a series of
`
`voltage dividers made of resistors (26) in series with a pressure sensor or
`
`variable resistor (28). Ex. 1001 at 2:64-3:2. The seat occupant detector
`
`microprocessor (22) analyzes seat occupant sensor voltage in order to derive
`
`passenger weight information. Id. at 2:61-3:7; Ex. 2001 at 12:8 – 13:11.
`
`The positions of the sensors are shown in Figures 2 and 3 of the ’007
`
`patent, which are reproduced below (with annotations added to Fig. 2). Ex.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`1001 at 2:20-21.
`
`The seat cushion has an upper surface 38 and a lower surface 40. Id. at 3:21-
`
`22. The lower surface is “seated on a rigid sheet or plastic form.” Id. at 3:21-
`
`
`
`23. The form (42) “holds a dozen pressure sensors 28 on its upper surface so
`
`that the sensors are pressed against the bottom surface 40 of the seat
`
`cushion.” Id. at 3:24-27; Ex. 2001 at 13:12 – 14:7.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 of the ‘007 Patent, which is reproduced below, is a flowchart
`
`overview of the operation of the system. Ex. 1001 at 3:36; Ex. 2001 at 14:8-
`
`18. The seat occupant detector microprocessor (22) reads the sensor values
`
`(46). Ex. 1001 at 3:37-38; Ex. 2001 at 14:19-22. One sensor at a time is
`
`turned on and sampled once every 100 msec. Ex. 1001 at 3:40-41; Ex. 2001
`
`at 15:1-4. The readings are then bias corrected -- a bias calibrated for each
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`sensor is subtracted from each sensor reading (48). Ex. 1001 at 3:37-41; Ex.
`
`2001 at 15:5-18. Then, decision measures are computed (50) and decision
`
`algorithms are run (52) to produce an output, which output (54) represents a
`
`decision (with an accompanying signal) to either inhibit (56) or allow (58)
`
`air bag deployment. Ex. 1001 at 3:41-46; Ex. 2001 at 15:19 16:9.
`
`The decision measure computations involve calculation of: the total
`
`force (the sum of the sensor
`
`outputs) and a total force
`
`threshold; sensor load ratings
`
`and measure; the long term
`
`average of the sensor readings
`
`and its threshold; and group
`
`sensor measures and thresholds.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:48-55; 4:11-15; Ex.
`
`2001 at 16:13 – 17:1. The
`
`different thresholds are variable and may increase and decrease over time.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:56-60. Inhibit times (during which no variation is permitted)
`
`are selected to control the rates of increase and decrease. Id. at 3:60-61; Ex.
`
`2001 at 18:12 – 19:2.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`The main decision algorithm uses an “Adult Lock Flag” as shown in
`
`Figure 8 of the ’007 Patent (below). Ex. 1001 at 4:36-37; Ex. 2001 at 19:3-
`
`11. Here, the term
`
`“adult” is used to
`
`distinguish between an
`
`occupant of a certain
`
`weight and a “child.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 4:37-40;
`
`Ex. 2001 at 10:6-10. A
`
`lock threshold and an
`
`unlock threshold are
`
`used to determine
`
`whether an “adult,” or occupant above a threshold mass, is in the seat. Ex.
`
`1001 at 4:36-44; Ex. 2001 at 20:5 – 21:5. A lock timer measures the time
`
`after the vehicle ignition is turned on, and a lock delay on the order of one to
`
`five minutes is used. Ex. 1001 at 4:42-44; Ex. 2001 at 21:6 – 22:1.
`
`A final decision algorithm for whether to deploy an airbag is shown in
`
`Figure 10 of the ’007 Patent,
`
`which is reproduced at left.
`
`Ex. 2001 at 5:8-9; Ex. 2002
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`at 22:7-17. A counter tabulates from zero to 255, and is incremented if an
`
`allow decision is made and decremented if an inhibit decision is made. Ex.
`
`1001 at 5:9-13. Final consent to deploy is granted when the count exceeds
`
`133. Id. at 5:13-14. If consent is granted, a count over 123 is needed to
`
`maintain the state, and if the count falls below 123, the consent is revoked
`
`and deployment is inhibited. Id. at 5:9-18. By averaging measures over time,
`
`the system can account for occupant movement. Id. at 5:31-33.
`
`Claim 17 is the only independent claim of the ’007 Patent challenged
`
`in the present petition and it is 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
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`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 at 7:51 – 8:8
`
`
`3. Argument.
`A. Claim Construction.
`In the arguments below,1 Patent Owner distinguishes the claims over
`
`the art cited by Petitioner and, in doing so, adopts certain constructions of
`
`various claim terms. The Board interprets the claims of a challenged patent
`
`using a “broadest reasonable construction” approach. Office Patent Trial
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Patent Owner reserves the right to pursue claim constructions in a district
`
`court according to the standards applicable in that venue. See Samsung
`
`Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Va. Innov. Scis., Inc., Case IPR2013-00569, Paper 9, slip
`
`op. at 2 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2013).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012); and see 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Such an interpretation of a claim’s language, however, is
`
`not one that permits any reading thereof. Instead, it is one that must be made
`
`“in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004); see also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010) (“The broadest-construction rubric coupled with the term
`
`‘comprising’ does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims
`
`to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention.”), In re
`
`Skvorecz, 580 F.3d at 1267 (“The protocol of giving claims their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation . . . does not include giving claims a legally
`
`incorrect interpretation.”); In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2011) (even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Board's
`
`construction “cannot be divorced from the specification and the record
`
`evidence,”). Thus, the focus of the inquiry regarding the meaning of a claim
`
`should be what would be reasonable from the perspective of one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d at 1260, and an
`
`interpretation that is inconsistent with the express disclosure and objectives
`
`of the patent is not “reasonable.” Id.; and see, In re Cortright, 165 F.3d
`
`1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Further, unless the patentee has clearly
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`demonstrated an intention to stray, there is a “heavy presumption” that a
`
`claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
`
`Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`As used in claim 17, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that “the flag” recited in the step of “clear the flag when the
`
`relative weight parameter is below the unlock threshold for a time,” is the
`
`same “unlock flag” recited in the step of “set a lock flag when the relative
`
`weight parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been
`
`allowed for a given time.” Ex. 2001 at 23:20 – 24:2.
`
`According to claim 17, the lock flag is set when the relative weight
`
`parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for
`
`a given time. Id. at 24:9-14.
`
`According to claim 17, the lock threshold is established above the first
`
`threshold. Id. at 24:15-18. As used in the context of claim 17, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that a threshold is a value at which
`
`a decision concerning a measured quantity is made. Id. at 17:2-11.
`
`According to claim 17, the lock threshold is cleared when the relative
`
`weight parameter is below the unlock threshold for some time. Id. at 24:19 –
`
`
`
`25:1.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`B. The Challenged Claims Are Not Anticipated by Schousek.
`
`Schousek, US Pat. 5,474,327 (Ex. 1003) does not anticipate claims 17
`
`and 21. Schousek describes a system that employs very different procedures
`
`than those recited in claim 17 of the ’007 Patent for controlling deployment
`
`of an air bag. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 at Figs. 1 and 5A-5B. For example,
`
`Schousek fails to teach or suggest allowing deployment of an air bag when a
`
`relative weight parameter used by a vehicle restraint system is above a first
`
`threshold, establishing a lock threshold above the first threshold, and setting
`
`a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is above the lock threshold
`
`and deployment has been allowed for a given time.
`
`
`
`i. Overview of Schousek.
`
`In Schousek, air bag deployment is determined based on an evaluation
`
`of the weight of a seat occupant vis-à-vis certain thresholds. If the total
`
`weight of the seat occupant is less than a minimum weight of an occupied
`
`infant seat, the seat is determined to be empty and air bag deployment is
`
`inhibited. If the total weight of the seat occupant is greater than a maximum
`
`weight of an occupied infant seat, air bag deployment is not inhibited.
`
`Finally, if the total weight of the seat occupant is determined to be between
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`the minimum weight of an occupied infant seat and the maximum weight of
`
`an occupied infant seat, air bag
`
`deployment depends on factors
`
`such as the legal requirements of
`
`where the vehicle is operated
`
`and/or whether the center of
`
`weight distribution is forward or
`
`aft of a seat reference line. Ex.
`
`1003 at 2:12-46; 4:55 – 5:3; 5:23-
`
`50. This algorithm is illustrated in
`
`Fig. 5A of Schousek. See steps 68
`
`– 86 of Fig. 5A (reproduced here);
`
`Ex. 2001 at 27:1 – 32:20
`
`(describing algorithm shown in
`
`Schousek’s Fig. 5A).
`
`Schousek also describes a fault detection procedure for an air bag
`
`control system. As illustrated in Fig. 5B (reproduced below), faults are
`
`detected by comparing the inhibit/no inhibit decisions reached in five
`
`consecutive loops of the process illustrated in Fig. 5A. Ex. 1003 at 5:51 –
`
`6:1. If the inhibit/no inhibit decision is consistent over five consecutive
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`loops, it is deemed correct and that inhibit/no inhibit decision is forwarded to
`
`the air bag deployment module. Id. at
`
`5:51-61; Ex. 2001 at 33:4 – 35:20. If,
`
`however, the five decisions are not the
`
`same, a previous inhibit/no inhibit
`
`decision is forwarded to the air bag
`
`deployment module and a fault
`
`registered. If a large number of
`
`consecutive faults are noted, then a fault
`
`condition is reported to the air bag
`
`deployment module. Ex. 1003 at 5:61-
`
`67; Ex. 2001 at 37:7 – 38:7. If this
`
`problem persists, a fault indicator is
`
`illuminated. Ex. 1003 at 6:2-6.
`
`
`
`ii. The Minimum Weight of an Occupied Infant Seat Taught by
`Schousek is Not Equivalent to the First Threshold of a Relative
`Weight Parameter Recited in the Challenged Claims.
`
`As indicated above, claim 17 of the ’007 Patent requires, inter alia:
`
`determin[ing] measures represented by individual
`sensor outputs and calculate from the sensor outputs a
`relative weight parameter,
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`establish[ing] a first threshold of the relative
`weight parameter,
`allow[ing] deployment when the relative weight
`parameter is above the first threshold
`
`Ex. 1001 at 7:60-66. Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, Pet. at 20-21, 25-26,
`
`and see Ex. 2001 at 42:14-20, 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.”
`
`
`
`According to Schousek, even if the seat sensors determine that the
`
`total weight of the seat occupant is greater than the minimum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat, air bag deployment is not allowed. Ex. 1003 at 5:39-47;
`
`Ex. 2001 at 31:2 – 32:3; 39:3-7. Instead, only if the center of weight
`
`distribution is determined to be not forward of a reference line—a condition
`
`indicative of a forward-facing infant seat—is air bag deployment permitted.
`
`Ex. 1003 at 5:47-50; Ex. 2001 at 32:4-9; 39:8-10.
`
`
`
`This is contrary to the requirements of claim 17 of the ’007 Patent.
`
`According to the claim, when the relative weight parameter is above the first
`
`threshold, deployment is allowed. No other requirements need be met.
`
`A patent claim is “invalid for anticipation [only] if a single prior art
`
`reference discloses each and every limitation” of the claim. Schering Corp.
`
`v. Geneva Pharm., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Moreover, “The
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the
`
`… claim.”). Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1989). As demonstrated above, if one attempts to read the minimum weight
`
`of an occupied infant seat as a “first threshold of the relative weight
`
`parameter,” then Schousek fails to meet these requirements because even if
`
`that condition is met, air bag deployment is not allowed. Only if the center
`
`of weight distribution is determined to be consistent with a forward-facing
`
`infant seat is air bag deployment permitted. Ex. 1003 at 5:47-50; Ex. 2001 at
`
`32:4-9; 39:8-10. Consequently, claim 17 of the ‘007 Patent is not anticipated
`
`by Schousek.
`
`
`
`Claim 21 depends from claim 17. Because each dependent claim
`
`necessarily includes the limitations of its respective parent, independent
`
`claim, 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), claim 21 is not anticipated by Schousek for at
`
`least the reasons specified above. See, e.g., VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`
`767 F.3d 1308, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“A claim is anticipated only if each
`
`and every element is found within a single prior art reference, arranged as
`
`claimed.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`iii. The Maximum Weight of an Occupied Infant Seat Taught by
`Schousek is Not Equivalent to the First Threshold of a Relative
`Weight Parameter Recited in the Challenged Claims.
`
`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. This is because claim 17 requires that
`
`the lock flag be set when “the relative weight parameter is above the lock
`
`threshold,” and the lock threshold must be established “above the first
`
`threshold.” Ex. 1001 at 7:63-66. In Schousek, there is no threshold that is
`
`greater than the maximum weight of an occupied infant seat. Therefore, if
`
`the maximum weight of an occupied infant seat is deemed equivalent to the
`
`“first threshold of the relative weight parameter,” there is no lock threshold
`
`that is established “above the first threshold.” Accordingly, if Petitioner
`
`contends that the maximum weight of an occupied infant seat is equivalent
`
`to the “first threshold of the relative weight parameter” recited in claim 17,
`
`then claim 17 is not anticipated by Schousek because there is no lock
`
`threshold established “above the first threshold.”2 Lindemann
`
`
`
` 2
`
` In fact, Petitioner contends that the 50 pounds for the maximum weight of
`
`an occupied infant seat is equivalent to the “lock threshold” in claim 17. Ex.
`
`2001 at 43:4-8.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1459
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1984) (The requirement that the prior art elements themselves be
`
`“arranged as in the claim” means that claims cannot be “treated . . . as mere
`
`catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-part relationships set
`
`forth in the claims and that give the claims their meaning.”). Net MoneyIN,
`
`Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[U]nless a
`
`reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of
`
`the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined
`
`in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior
`
`invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102.”).
`
`Claim 21 depends from claim 17. Because each dependent claim
`
`necessarily includes the limitations of its respective parent, independent
`
`claim, 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), claim 21 is not anticipated by Schousek for at
`
`least the reasons specified above.
`
`
`
`iv. Schousek Does Not Teach Setting a Lock Flag When a Relative
`Weight Parameter is Above a Lock Threshold and Air Bag
`Deployment has Been Allowed for a Given Time, as Recited in the
`Challenged Claims.
`
`As indicated above, claim 17 of the ’007 Patent requires, inter alia,
`
`“set[ting] a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is above the lock
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given time.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`8:1-3; Ex.2001 at 24:9-14. Schousek techs no such feature. Accordingly,
`
`claim 17 is not anticipated by Schousek.
`
`As discussed above, Schousek illustrates a fault detection scheme in
`
`Fig. 5B. Faults are detected by comparing the inhibit/no inhibit decisions
`
`reached in five consecutive loops of sensing the total weight detected by the
`
`seat sensors. Ex. 1003 at 5:51 – 6:1; Ex. 2001 at 33:16 – 34:10. If the
`
`inhibit/no inhibit decision is consistent over five consecutive loops, it is
`
`deemed correct and that inhibit/no inhibit decision is forwarded to the air
`
`bag deployment module. Ex. 1003 at 5:51-61; Ex. 2001 at 34:11 – 35:20. If,
`
`however, the five decisions are not the same, a previous inhibit/no inhibit
`
`decision is forwarded to the air bag deployment module and a fault is
`
`registered. Ex. 1003 at 5:61-64; Ex. 2001 at 37:1 – 38:7. In other words,
`
`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. Ex. 1003. at Fig. 5B els. 92-100; Ex. 2001 at
`
`35:21 – 36: 4 (acknowledging that the decision about whether to permit
`
`airbag deployment or inhibit airbag deployment at step 100 is made without
`
`referring to any previous decision that was transmitted to the SIR module).
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`Thus, the “previous decision” of Schousek will be set to whichever
`
`determination, inhibit / no inhibit, is reached over a set of five preceding,
`
`consistent determinations. Ex. 1003 at 5:55-61. In some instances, this will
`
`be a decision to inhibit (not allow) air bag deployment.
`
`Furthermore, in circumstances where the “previous decision” of
`
`Schousek has been to inhibit air bag deployment, when the next five
`
`determinations of the total weight are such as to permit air bag deployment,
`
`that decision is forwarded to the air bag deployment module without ever
`
`consulting the “previous decision.” Indeed, according to Schousek, the value
`
`of the previous deployment is irrelevant and is not consulted when a current
`
`decision to inhibit or not inhibit air bag deployment is sent to the air bag
`
`deployment module. Id. at Fig. 5B (showing els. 98 and 100 without
`
`consulting a “previous decision”); Ex. 2001 at 35:21 – 36: 4.
`
`Thus, Schousek does not teach “set[ting] a lock flag when the relative
`
`weight parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been
`
`allowed for a given time,” as required by claim 17. Instead, in Schousek, the
`
`“previous decision” is set to indicate the result of five common (i.e., the
`
`same), consecutive determinations of the seat occupant weight, and that
`
`“previous decision” is never consulted when a decision (inhibit / no inhibit)
`
`is sent to the air bag deployment module—i.e., regardless of whether
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`deployment has been allowed for a given time. The 50 lb. weight is not a
`
`threshold at all because regardless of whether the relative weight parameter
`
`is below the 50 lb. maximum weight of an occupied infant seat, the same
`
`result (inhibit / do not inhibit) ensues. Thus, claim 17 is not anticipated by
`
`Schousek. Schering Corp., 339 F.3d at 1377.
`
`Claim 21 depends from claim 17. Because each dependent claim
`
`necessarily includes the limitations of its respective parent, independent
`
`claim, 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), claim 21 is not anticipated by Schousek for at
`
`least the reasons specified above.
`
`
`
`v. Schousek Does Not Teach Clearing a Lock Flag When a Relative
`Weight Parameter is Below an Unlock Threshold for a Time, as
`Recited in the Challenged Claims.
`
`As indicated above, claim 17 of the ’007 Patent requires, inter alia,
`
`“clear[ing] the [lock] flag when the relative weight parameter is below the
`
`unlock threshold for a time.” Ex. 1001 at 8:6-7. Schousek teaches no such
`
`feature. Instead, 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 unlock threshold for a
`
`period of time, but rather when the decision to inhibit deployment of the
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`airbag remains unchanged over five consecutive fault monitoring loops. Ex.
`
`1003 at 5:58-61; Ex. 2001 at 35:16-20.
`
`As discussed above, a decision to inhibit deployment is made when
`
`the total weight of the seat occupant is determined to be between the
`
`minimum weight of an occupied infant seat and the maximum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat, and the center of weight distribution is forward of a
`
`seat reference line. Ex. 1003 at 2:12-46; 4:55 – 5:3; 5:23-50; Ex. 2001 at
`
`39:3-7. Thus, even though the seat is occupied, and the total weight is above
`
`the minimum weight of an occupied infant seat, air bag deployment is
`
`inhibited and that decision is set as the current decision. Ex. 1003 at 5:58-60;
`
`Ex. 2001 at 39:11-20. Thus, claim 17 is not anticipated by Schousek.
`
`Schering Corp., 339 F.3d at 1377.
`
`Claim 21 depends from claim 17. Because each dependent claim
`
`necessarily includes the limitations of its respective parent, independent
`
`claim, 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), claim 21 is not anticipated by Schousek for at
`
`least the reasons specified above.
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`vi. Schousek Does Not Allow Deployment of an Airbag When the
`Relative Weight Parameter is Above the First Threshold, as Recited in
`the Challenged Claims.
`
`As indicated above, claim 17 of the ’007 Patent requires, inter alia,
`
`“allow[ing] deployment [of the air bag] when the relative weight parameter
`
`is above the first threshold.” Ex. 1001 at 7:65-66 (emphasis added).
`
`Schousek techs no such feature. Accordingly, claim 17 is not anticipated by
`
`Schousek.
`
`It is undisputed that in Schousek even though the total weight is
`
`greater than the minimum weight of an occupied infant seat (which
`
`Petitioner contends is the recited “first threshold”—see Ex. 2001 at 42:14-
`
`20), air bag deployment is prohibited if the total weight is less than the
`
`maximum weight of an occupied infant seat. For example, in such
`
`circumstances air bag deployment will depend on factors such as the legal
`
`requirements of where the vehicle is operated and/or whether the center of
`
`weight distribution is forward or aft of a seat reference line. Ex. 1003 at
`
`2:12-46; 4:55 – 5:3; 5:23-50; Ex. 2001 at 32:10-20. Thus, Schousek does not
`
`teach allowing deployment when the relative weight parameter is above the
`
`first threshold. Instead, deployment in such circumstances depends on a host
`
`of other facts, some not even related to weight. In contrast, claim 17 requires
`
`“allow[ing] deployment [of the air bag] when [i.e., at or during the time that]
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`the relative weight parameter is above the first threshold.” Ex. 1001 at 7:65-
`
`66. Because this feature is not taught by Schousek, claim 17 is not
`
`anticipated by Schousek. Schering Corp., 339 F.3d at 1377.
`
`Claim 21 depends from claim 17. Because each dependent claim
`
`necessarily includes the limitations of its respective parent, independent
`
`claim, 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), claim 21 is not anticipated by Schousek for at
`
`least the reasons specified above.
`
`
`4. Conclusion.
`For at least the foregoing reasons, the Board should find in favor of
`
`Patent Owner and confirm the patentability of the challenged claims.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`Reg. No. 41,402
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 2, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ascenda Law Group, PC
`333 W San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Email: tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`And its accompanying exhibits was served on September 2, 2016, by filing
`this document though the PTAB E2E system as well as by delivering a copy
`via email directed to the attorneys of reco

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket