REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re application of
`
`Docket No: PR00064
`
`Duane Donald Fortune et al.
`
`Issued: January 4, 2000
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`Application No. 08/8687,338
`
`Filing Date: June 3, 1997
`
`
`
`For: OCCUPANT DETECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AIR BAG
`SYSTEM
`
` DECLARATION OF DR. STEPHEN W. ROUHANA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1010
` Page 1
`
`

`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................ 1
`
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS ............................................................................................ 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Instructions ...............................................................................................................9
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications.............................................................14
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE '007 PATENT .................................................................................... 16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Brief Description ....................................................................................................16
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the '007 Patent ........................................18
`
`IV.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................... 21
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Terms Not Requiring the District Court's Construction ........................................21
`
`Terms Construed By the District Court .................................................................22
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Means for Inhibiting and Allowing Deployment .......................................22
`
`A Level Indicative of an Empty Seat .........................................................22
`
`Relative Weight Parameter .........................................................................23
`
`V.
`
`AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE '007 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ........................ 25
`
`A.
`
`Grounds 1-3 in view of Schousek ..........................................................................25
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 17 and 21 are anticipated by Schousek. .......................25
`
`Ground 2: Claims 17 and 21 are obvious over Schousek in
`view of Fu ..................................................................................................38
`
`Ground 3: Claim 22 is obvious over Schousek in view of
`Fu and Cashler. ..........................................................................................43
`
`B.
`
`Grounds 4-5 based on Blackburn ...........................................................................50
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Ground 4: Claims 17 and 21 are obvious from Blackburn in
`view of JP 258 and Schousek.....................................................................50
`
`Ground 5: Claim 22 of the ‘007 patent is obvious under 35
`U.S.C. §103(a) by Blackburn in view of Schousek, JP 258
`and Cashler.................................................................................................66
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................... 69
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1010
` Page 2
`
`

`
`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`I, Stephen W. Rouhana, of Plymouth, Michigan, declare as follows:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
`1. My Curriculum Vitae is attached hereto, and it includes a listing of my prior
`
`experience. My background, education, and professional experiences are
`
`summarized below.
`
`2.
`
`I received my B.S. degree with a triple major in Physics, Mathematics, and
`
`Religious Studies from Manhattan College, Riverdale, NY, in 1977 and my M.S.
`
`and Ph.D. degrees in Physics from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, in
`
`1981 and 1983, respectively.
`
`3.
`
`I have over 30 years of experience in the field of automotive safety, including
`
`research and development of airbags, seat belts, sensors, algorithms, crash test
`
`dummies, biomechanics, out-of-position injuries, and many other topics. Some of
`
`this work is outlined below.
`
`4.
`
`I was hired as a Senior Research Scientist by the Research Laboratories of
`
`General Motors Corporation (hereafter, GMR) in May of 1983 to perform research
`
`in the Biomedical Science Department’s Crash Injury Section. Initially, I performed
`
`basic research to understand mechanisms of injury in automotive crashes. After
`
`promotion to Staff Research Scientist in 1987, in addition to continuing research on
`
`
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1010
` Page 3
`
`

`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`crash injury prevention, I was appointed to the GM Belt Restraint Technical
`
`Committee which reviewed and oversaw vehicle program developments of seat belt
`
`systems and their operation in conjunction with airbags. During this time my
`
`research included research into crash test dummies and their ability to assess injury
`
`in car crash tests. This led to a publication titled “Use of Crash Test Dummies for
`
`Injury Assessment" (Proceedings of the Inaugural International Body Engineering
`
`Conference, IBEC Ltd Publications, 1993). In 1992, I was appointed to the SIR
`
`(Supplemental Inflatable Restraint, or Airbag) Performance Assessment Committee
`
`(SIR PAC). The SIR PAC oversaw vehicle program developments of airbags,
`
`including assessment of “All-Fire” and “No-Fire” thresholds. My role was
`
`representing the biomechanics community at GM which, among other things,
`
`considered effects of airbags on out-of-position occupants. During this time, I
`
`developed a method to measure the speed of the leading edge of a deploying airbag
`
`because it was believed to be related to risk of out-of-position injury risk. This led
`
`to a publication the Journal of Trauma, titled “"Physical and Chemical
`
`Characterization of Air Bag Deployment Effluents" (J. Trauma, Vol. 38(4):528-532,
`
`1995). Around this time I also began developing a method to measure and assess
`
`risk of injury from the noise associated with airbag deployments. This work led to
`
`2
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1010
` Page 4
`
`

`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`three publications while I was at GM, viz. (a) "Investigation into the Noise
`
`Associated with Air Bag Deployment: Part 1 - Measurement Technique and
`
`Parameter Study" (38th Stapp Car Crash Conference Proceedings, SAE Technical
`
`Paper No. 942218, 1994), and (b) “Ear Injury and Hearing Loss with Automobile
`
`Airbag Deployments” (Accident Analysis & Prevention Vol. 31, 1999), and (c)
`
`“Investigation into the Noise Associated with Airbag Deployment: Part II – Injury
`
`Risk Study Using a Mathematical Model of the Human Ear” (42nd Stapp Car Crash
`
`Conference Proceedings, SAE Technical Paper No. 983162, 1998). Finally, at GM,
`
`I participated in a laboratory investigation of arm injuries from deploying airbags to
`
`out-of-position occupants in car crashes which led to a publication titled
`
`"Assessment of Airbag Aggressivity Relative to Airbag-Induced Forearm
`
`Fractures" (Stapp Car Crash Journal, Volume 45, 2001).
`
`5.
`
`In the late 1980s, because of the expertise I had developed in the field of
`
`automotive safety, I was asked to participate in various committees of the Society
`
`of Automotive Engineers (hereafter, SAE). Among these committees were, the SAE
`
`Inflatable Restraints Standards Committee (ca 1991-2014), the SAE Restraint
`
`Systems Standards Committee (1989-1996), and the SAE Impulse Noise Task
`
`Force (SAE INTF) of the Inflatable Restraints Standards Committee. I was a voting
`
`3
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1010
` Page 5
`
`

`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`member on all of these committees, and Chairman of the SAE INTF. The Inflatable
`
`Restraints Standards Committee members were expected to develop, review, and
`
`vote on all SAE Standards, Recommended Practices, and Information Reports
`
`dealing with airbags in passenger vehicles.
`
`6.
`
`In the year 2000, I left GM and became employed at Ford Motor Company’s
`
`Scientific Research Laboratory in the Safety Research Department. Shortly after
`
`joining Ford, I was asked to lead the Advanced Occupant Protection research group.
`
`This group of scientists and engineers was focused on improving occupant safety
`
`including considerations of airbags and seat belts. One such project was the
`
`research and development of Inflatable Seat Belts, which had airbags incorporated
`
`into the shoulder belt of a 3-point seat belt. I co-led the research team investigating
`
`the efficacy and design of Inflatable Belts, and I led the team investigating potential
`
`out-of-position effects of Inflatable Belts. This led to two publications, viz. (a)
`
`“Biomechanical Assessment of a Rear-Seat Inflatable Seatbelt in Frontal Impacts”
`
`(Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol 55, pp. 161-197, 2011), and (b) “Biomechanical
`
`Considerations for Assessing Interactions of Children and Small Occupants with
`
`Inflatable Seat Belts” (Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 57, pp. 89 - 137, 2013). My
`
`responsibilities at Ford also included advising multiple vehicle programs on
`
`4
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1010
` Page 6
`
`

`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`technical issues dealing with seatbelts and airbags as they affect occupant injury
`
`risk. Among other topics, my research at Ford included development of a neck
`
`shield for airbag testing of out-of-position occupants which led to a publication
`
`titled “Development and Evaluation of a Proposed Neck Shield for the 5th
`
`Percentile Hybrid III Female Dummy” (Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 49,
`
`November, 2005). Additionally, I participated in an international project
`
`investigating farside impact injury. This work led to the filing of a patent, which
`
`was granted (US 8,430,424, Issued April 30, 2013) and which involved an occupant
`
`sensing scheme, airbag deployment scheme and an associated algorithm to deploy
`
`frontal and side airbags on the right side of the vehicle for a driver in a right side
`
`crash.
`
`7.
`
`At the time I joined Ford, because of my expertise, in addition to my SAE
`
`committee work, I was also asked to represent Ford in the International Standards
`
`Organization (ISO), and to become chairman of ISO Technical Committee 22, Sub-
`
`Committee 12, Working Group 3, “Test Procedures for Evaluating Vehicle
`
`Occupant Interactions with Deploying Air Bags”. This Working Group was
`
`responsible for development of ISO Technical Reports and Standards dealing with
`
`occupant interactions with deploying airbags. I also represented Ford as the
`
`5
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1010
` Page 7
`
`

`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`Chairman of a subcommittee of the Side Airbag Technical Working Group. In this
`
`role I led a team of researchers from various organizations as we compared airbag
`
`test procedures proposed by the automotive industry and the National Highway
`
`Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). This work led to a Committee Report
`
`titled “An Analysis of the Results of NHTSA Tests using the TWG Recommended
`
`Procedures for Evaluating Occupant Injury Risk from Deploying Side Airbags”
`
`(2003).
`
`8.
`
`Over the course of my career in automotive safety, I have worked with
`
`numerous engineers involved in design and release of automotive safety systems
`
`such as airbags and seat belts, and with numerous suppliers in the U.S., Germany,
`
`Japan, and many other countries and from all major safety suppliers, including,
`
`among others, Takata Corporation, TRW, Autoliv, Key Safety Systems, Breed, and
`
`Delphi.
`
`9.
`
`I have been an adjunct Professor in the Bioengineering Department at Wayne
`
`State University since 2003.
`
`10. At the end of 2014, I retired from Ford Motor Company in order to pursue
`
`other interests. In September of 2015, I formed a company called Vehicle Safety
`
`6
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1010
` Page 8
`
`

`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`Sciences, LLC to enable me to perform consulting services in the field of
`
`automotive safety. I am the President and Chief Technical Officer of this company.
`
`11.
`
`I have been awarded twelve (12) U.S. patents, and have at least five (5)
`
`International Patents, two (2) more U.S. Patents in a condition of Allowance, and
`
`three (3) additional U.S. filings pending.
`
`12.
`
`I am author or co-author on 76 publications with numerous presentations,
`
`reports, and invited lectures (listed on my C.V.). I was primary author on three (3)
`
`published SAE Standards.
`
`13. Given the experience disclosed above, I believe I have an excellent
`
`understanding of the state of the art during the period of time of the patents under
`
`discussion and can provide sound judgment as to how persons skilled in the art
`
`would have understood the technical issues at the time.
`
`14.
`
`I am not currently, nor have I ever been, employed by AISIN SEIKI, CO.,
`
`LTD., or any affiliate or subsidiary thereof.
`
`15. My company, Vehicle Safety Sciences, LLC (hereafter, VSS, LLC) is
`
`receiving compensation for my time, billed at my normal hourly rate for time
`
`actually spent reviewing materials and performing my analysis of the technical
`
`issues relevant to this matter. VSS, LLC will not receive any compensation that is
`
`7
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1010
` Page 9
`
`

`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`dependent on the opinions I formulate or offer below, nor will VSS, LLC receive
`
`any added compensation based on the outcome of the inter partes review of patent
`
`6,012,007 (hereafter, the ‘007 patent).
`
`16.
`
`In writing this Declaration, I have been asked to provide certain opinions
`
`related to the patentability of the ‘007 patent. In doing so, I have considered my
`
`own work experience in research and development of automotive safety systems,
`
`my experience dealing with design and release engineers at General Motors and
`
`Ford Motor Company, and my experiences in dealing with scores of engineers from
`
`the safety supply base. I believe that these experiences render me well-qualified to
`
`judge the level of ordinary skill in the art and the anticipation or obviousness of
`
`claims in view of prior art.
`
`II.
`17.
`
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS
`
`It is my opinion that claims 17, 21 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 (Ex.
`
`1001, "the '007 Patent") are unpatentable. My opinions are based on my expertise in
`
`the technology of the '007 patent, as well as my review of the '007 patent, its file
`
`history, and the prior art asserted relied on in the grounds of this IPR. If the patent
`
`owner is allowed to submit additional evidence pertaining to the validity of the '007
`
`8
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1010
` Page 10
`
`

`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`patent, I intend to review that as well and update my analysis and conclusions as
`
`appropriate, and allowed under the rules of this proceeding.
`
`18.
`
`I have reviewed and/or analyzed the at least the following publications and
`
`materials, in addition to other materials I may cite in my Declaration. It should be
`
`noted that the opinions I express in this Declaration are not exhaustive of my
`
`opinions on patentability of any claims in the ‘007 patent. Therefore, if a specific
`
`point is not addressed, it should not be construed that my opinion on that point
`
`indicates my agreement or disagreement with the patentability related to that point.
`
`A. Instructions
`
`19.
`
`I am not an attorney. My analysis and opinions are based on my expertise in
`
`this technical field, as well as the instructions I have been given by counsel for the
`
`legal standards relating to patent validity.
`
`20. The materials I have reviewed in connection with my analysis include the
`
`'007 patent, its file history, and the cited references and exhibits.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that patents are presumed to be valid. I understand that
`
`invalidity in this proceeding must be proven by a preponderance of evidence, and
`
`that is the standard I have used throughout my report. Further, I understand that
`
`each patent claim is considered separately for purposes of invalidity.
`
`9
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1010
` Page 11
`
`

`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`
`22.
`
`I am informed that a patent claim is invalid as "anticipated" if each and every
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`feature of the claim is found, expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference
`
`or product. Claim limitations that are not expressly found in a prior art reference are
`
`inherent if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the
`
`claim limitations. It is acceptable to examine evidence outside the prior art
`
`reference (extrinsic evidence) in determining whether a feature, while not expressly
`
`discussed in the reference, is necessarily present in it.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid as "obvious" if, in view of a prior
`
`art reference or a combination of prior art references, it would have been obvious to
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, taking into account:
`
`the scope and content of the prior art; the differences between the prior art and the
`
`claim under consideration; and the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`24. A person of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle air bag control systems and
`
`their methods of activation at the time of the alleged invention would have had a
`
`degree in a related field of science including physics, mechanical or electric
`
`engineering or equivalent coursework and at least two years of experience in the
`
`area of automotive safety control systems.
`
`10
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1010
` Page 12
`
`

`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`
`25.
`
`I am informed that legal principles regarding invalidity of a claim due to
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`obviousness were addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court. I am informed that the
`
`principles relating to a "motivation," "suggestion," or "teaching" in the prior art to
`
`combine references to produce the claimed alleged invention remain an appropriate
`
`approach in a validity analysis. I am informed that the suggestion or motivation
`
`may be either explicit or implicit, may come from knowledge generally available to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art, and may come from the nature of the problem to be
`
`solved. The test for an implicit motivation, suggestion, or teaching is what the
`
`combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of
`
`the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. The problem examined is not the specific problem solved by the
`
`invention, but the general problem that confronted the inventor before the invention
`
`was made.
`
`26. As I understand it, it is no longer always required to present evidence of a
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine prior art references for purposes of
`
`determining whether an invention is obvious. Prior art can be combined based on
`
`either a teaching, suggestion, or motivation from the prior art itself, or from a
`
`reasoned explanation of an expert or other witness.
`
`11
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1010
` Page 13
`
`

`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`
`27. A patent claim composed of several elements, however, is not proved
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`
`
`
`
`obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
`
`known in the prior art. In order to prove obviousness, it must be shown that the
`
`improvement is not more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to
`
`their established functions. To determine whether there was an apparent reason to
`
`combine the known elements in the way a patent claims, it will often be necessary
`
`to look to interrelated teachings of multiple pieces of prior art, to the effects of
`
`demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and to the
`
`background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. Also,
`
`in determining obviousness, one must be aware of the distortion caused by
`
`hindsight bias and be cautious of arguments reliant upon hindsight reasoning An
`
`obviousness argument cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements. Instead,
`
`it must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
`
`the legal conclusion of obviousness.
`
`28.
`
`In an obviousness analysis, it is my understanding that there are "secondary
`
`considerations" that should be analyzed if they apply. I am told that these
`
`considerations include (1) whether the prior art teaches away from the claimed
`
`invention, (2) whether there was a long felt but unresolved need for the claimed
`
`12
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1010
` Page 14
`
`

`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`invention, (3) whether others tried but failed to make the claimed invention,
`
`skepticism of experts, (4) whether the claimed invention was commercially
`
`successful, (5) whether the claimed invention was praised by others, and (6)
`
`whether the claimed invention was copied by others.
`
`29.
`
`I have also been instructed that ultimately claims are construed in light of
`
`how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claims. It is my
`
`understanding that what is to be considered includes the claims, the patent
`
`specification and drawings, and the prosecution history, including any art listed by
`
`the Examiner or the applicant. It is my understanding that information external to
`
`the patent, including expert and inventor testimony and unlisted prior art, are to be
`
`considered in construing the claims only if ambiguities remain. However, expert
`
`testimony may be useful in helping to explain the technology. I further understand
`
`technical dictionaries, encyclopedias, and treatises may also be used in claim
`
`construction, as long as these definitions do not contradict any definition found in
`
`or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents. In my analysis, I have
`
`considered and applied the proposed claim constructions set forth herein, unless
`
`otherwise indicated.
`
`13
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1010
` Page 15
`
`

`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`
`30.
`
`I understand that an issued U.S. patent is presumed to be valid, and can be
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`challenged in this proceeding on invalidity grounds only upon proof by a
`
`preponderance of evidence.
`
`B. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`31. The '007 patent was filed on June 3, 1997 and issued on Jan. 4, 2000. The
`
`'007 patent identifies itself as a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 to
`
`Cashler (Ex. 1008), which was filed on Dec. 1, 1995. I am instructed to assume for
`
`the purpose of my analysis that the claims of the '007 Patent have an earliest
`
`effective filing date of June 3, 1997. I am informed that the Petitioners rely upon
`
`the following patents and printed publications of which, only Cashler was applied
`
`during the prosecution of the '007 Patent, and each of which is prior art to the '007
`
`Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and/or (b) and/or (e):
`
`Ex. 1003 - U.S. Patent 5,474,327 to Schousek qualifies as prior art at least
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Schousek issued on December 12, 1995, more than one
`
`year before the June 3, 1997, the filing date of the '007 Patent, and thus is prior art
`
`at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Ex. 1004 - US. Patent 5,848,661 to Fu ("Fu") qualifies as prior art at least
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Fu issued from a U.S. application filed on October 22,
`
`14
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1010
` Page 16
`
`

`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`1996, prior to the June 3, 1997 filing date of the '007 Patent, and thus qualifies as
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(e).
`
`Ex. 1005 - U.S. Patent 5,232,243 to Blackburn ("Blackburn") qualifies as
`
`prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b). Blackburn issued on August 3,
`
`1993, more than one year before the June 3, 1997 filing date of the '007 Patent, and
`
`thus is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Ex. 1006 - Japanese Patent application 09-127258 (hereinafter “JP 258”)
`
`titled "Seat Detecting Apparatus" was published on May 16, 1997 and is therefore
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) (Ex. 1007 - certified translation of JP 258).
`
`Ex. 1008 - U.S. Patent 5,732,375 to Cashler (“Cashler”) issued from an
`
`application filed on December 1, 1995, was published on July 30, 1996 and
`
`therefore available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) and (e).
`
`32. An explanation of how claims 17, 21 and 22 are unpatentable under the
`
`statutory grounds identified below, including the identification of where each
`
`element is found in the prior art references and the relevance of each of the prior art
`
`references, is provided in the form of detailed claim charts.
`
`Ground
`
`'007 Patent Claims Basis for Rejection
`
`Ground 1
`
`17 and 21
`
`Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Schousek
`(Ex. 1003)
`
`15
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1010
` Page 17
`
`

`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Ground 2
`
`17 and 21
`
`Ground 3 Claim 22
`
`Ground 4 Claims 17 and 21
`
`Ground 5 Claim 22
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over
`Schousek (Ex. 1003) in view of Fu (Ex. 1004).
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over
`Schousek (Ex. 1003) in view of Fu (Ex. 1004)
`and Cashler (Ex. 1008).
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over
`Blackburn (Ex. 1005) in view of JP 258 (Ex.
`1006) and Schousek (Ex. 1003).
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over
`Blackburn (Ex. 1005) in view of JP 258 (Ex.
`1006), Schousek (Ex. 1003) and Cashler (Ex.
`1008).
`
`
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE '007 PATENT
`A. Brief Description
`
`33. Based on my review, The ‘007 Patent relates to an occupant detection system
`
`for determining whether to inhibit or allow the deployment of a supplemental
`
`inflatable restraint (SIRs) or air bag in an automobile. It is an object of the '007
`
`Patent to discriminate between large and small occupants and to maintain reliable
`
`operation of the air bag system.
`
`34. The algorithm for processing the the claimed lock flag is shown in FIG. 8
`
`reproduced below.
`
`16
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1010
` Page 18
`
`

`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`
`
`35. The '007 Patent describes that the term "Adult" refers not to the age or
`
`maturity of an occupant, but rather to a weight which is chosen to distinguish from
`
`a small child. When the Adult Lock Flag is set <94>, the output decision will
`
`always allow deployment. To make the determination whether to set the lock flag,
`
`the algorithm uses a lock threshold which is above the total force threshold range,
`
`and an unlock threshold which represents an empty seat. See col. 4, ll. 36-44. The
`
`algorithm also uses a lock delay on the order of one to five minutes, and a lock
`
`timer which measures the time since vehicle ignition is turned on. If the total force
`
`is greater than the lock threshold, and the lock timer is larger than the lock delay
`
`17
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1010
` Page 19
`
`

`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`<76>, a flag value is increased toward a maximum value <78> and the Adult Lock
`
`Flag is set <80>. Id. at col.4, ll. 46-50. If the decision at block <76> is No, then it
`
`is determined whether the total force is above the unlock threshold <82> and if not,
`
`whether the total force is below the unlock threshold and the flag value is greater
`
`than zero <84>. Id. at col.4, ll. 50-54. If so, the flag value is decreased <86>, and in
`
`either case the flag value is tested <88>; if the value is above zero the Flag is set
`
`<80> and if the value is zero the Flag is cleared <90>. See col. 4, ll. 44-57.
`
`B. Summary of the Prosecution History of the '007 Patent
`
`36.
`
`I summarize my understanding of the prosecution history as follows. On
`
`April 9, 1999, the USPTO mailed a Non-Final Office Action in which multiple
`
`objections and rejections were raised by the Examiner. The specification, drawing
`
`and claim objections related to minor informalities that were corrected in the July 6,
`
`1999 Amendment.
`
`37. The claim rejections were based on the published U.S. Patent 5,732,375 to
`
`Cashler (prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(e)). Specifically, all of the claims 1-27
`
`were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being obvious over Cashler as follows:
`
`(1) Claims 1-5, 9-12 and 16-27 were rejected on the basis that Cashler
`
`disclosed all of the features recited in these claims, with the exception of the
`
`18
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1010
` Page 20
`
`

`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`feature "clearing the flag when the relative weight parameter is below the
`
`unlock threshold for a time (claims 1, 16 and 17). However, the Examiner
`
`deemed the claims obvious because one of skill in the art would have readily
`
`understood Cashler's system/method to be at least a fully functional
`
`equivalent to the claimed system and method.
`
`(2) Claims 6-8 and 13-15 were rejected on the basis that Cashler
`
`discloses utilizing fuzzy logic and establishing a variation of the threshold
`
`over time with a specified range, but the Examiner noted that Cashler failed
`
`to specifically teach a fuzzy value obtained by the calculating, determining
`
`and combining steps or increasing or decreasing the threshold. The
`
`Examiner deemed the claims obvious because one of skill in the art would
`
`have readily understood Cashler's system/method to be at least a fully
`
`functional equivalent to the claimed system and method.
`
`38.
`
`In the Amendment filed July 6, 1999, the Applicant traversed the Cashler
`
`rejections by arguing that Cashler fails to disclose various claim recitations and that
`
`Cashler is not prior art as is commonly assigned to the present application.
`
`39. Regarding the merits of the prior art rejections, the Applicant conceded "the
`
`Cashler patent admittedly is foundational to the present invention," but asserted that
`
`19
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1010
` Page 21
`
`

`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`the rejected claims recite non-obvious enhancements in the form of apparatus and
`
`method steps which are particularly useful for discriminating between heavy and
`
`light occupants under dynamic conditions due, for example, to occupant shifting or
`
`bouncing. In particular, the Applicant argued:
`
`Such enhancements are neither shown nor suggested in
`Cashler. Independent method Claims 1 and 16 both recite
`the steps of: (1) establishing a lock threshold above the
`normal allow threshold, (2) setting a lock flag when the
`total force or relative weight parameter is above the lock
`threshold AND deployment has been allowed for a given
`time, (3) clearing the lock flag when the total force or
`relative weight parameter is below an empty seat
`threshold for a time, and (4) allowing deployment while
`the lock flag is set. Independent apparatus Claim 17
`includes nearly identical recitations, but in the context of
`functions performed by a programmed microprocessor.
`These steps/functions are not found in Cashler; rather,
`they enhance Cashler by addressing dynamic operating
`conditions not even recognized in the Cashler patent.
`
`(Ex. 1002) See April 9, 1999 Non-Final Office Action.
`
`40.
`
`In other words, the Applicant admitted that the claims of the '007 Patent are
`
`not disclosed or rendered obvious by Cashler. Thus, the '007 Patent is not entitled
`
`to the earlier filing date of the Cashler patent, but rather to a June 3, 1997 filing date.
`
`On August 18, 1999, the USPTO issued a Notice of Allowance allowing claims 1-
`
`27 of the '007 Patent.
`
`20
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1010
` Page 22
`
`

`
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`41.
`
`I am informed that a claim subject to inter partes review is given its
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`it appears.” (37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).) But, “the 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). The '007 patent expired December 1, 2015, and thus,
`
`the claims are instead construed in the same manner as the District Court. However,
`
`a different c