`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`Patent No. 5,732,375
`Issue Date: March 24, 1998
`Title: METHOD OF INHIBITING OR ALLOWING AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT ANDREWS
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01382
`_______________________________________________________________
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:27)(cid:21) (cid:16) (cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17) (cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:28)
`(cid:55)(cid:82)(cid:92)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:68) (cid:48)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:85) (cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:15) (cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)
`(cid:20)
`
`
`
`I, Scott Andrews, do hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`I am currently a consultant for Cogenia Partners, LLC, focusing on
`
`systems engineering, business development and technical strategy supporting
`
`automotive and information technology. I have been in this position since 2001. In
`
`one of my active engagements, I serve as the technical lead on a project funded by
`
`the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop
`
`requirements for connected vehicle safety systems in preparation for NHTSA
`
`regulations governing such systems. I also serve as a technical consultant on
`
`multiple projects sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
`
`related to connected vehicle technology research.
`
`2.
`
`I have over 30 years of professional experience in the field of
`
`automotive technologies and systems, including vehicle information systems and
`
`vehicle safety and control systems. Further, I have authored numerous published
`
`technical papers and am a named inventor on 13 U.S. and foreign patents.
`
`3.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`from University of California, Irvine in 1977 and a Master of Science degree in
`
`Electronic Engineering from Stanford University in 1982.
`
`4.
`
`From 1977 to 1979, I worked at Ford Aerospace where I designed,
`
`tested and delivered microwave radar receiver systems.
`
`-1-
`
`(cid:21)
`
`
`
`5.
`
`From 1979 to 1983, I worked at Teledyne Microwave, where I
`
`developed high reliability microwave components and developed CAD tools.
`
`6.
`
`From 1983 to 1996, I worked at TRW, Inc., having held various
`
`positions. From 1983 to 1985, I was a Member of the technical staff and a
`
`Department Manager in the Space Electronics sector. Between 1985 and 1990 I
`
`was a project manager working on various communications systems projects
`
`including
`
`the U.S. Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects
`
`Administration (ARPA) MIMIC Program. Between 1990 and 1993 I was the
`
`Manager
`
`of MMIC
`
`(monolithic-microwave-integrated-circuit)
`
`Products
`
`Organization. In this role, I developed business strategy and managed customer
`
`and R&D programs. During this time, I also developed the first single chip 94 GHz
`
`Radar, used for automotive cruise control and anti-collision systems. In 1993 I
`
`transferred to the TRW Automotive Electronics Group, and managed about 30
`
`engineers in the Systems Engineering and Advanced Product Development
`
`organization. In this role, I managed advanced development programs such as
`
`automotive radar, adaptive cruise control, occupant sensing, automatic crash
`
`notification systems,
`
`in-vehicle
`
`information systems, and other emerging
`
`transportation products.
`
`7.
`
`I previously was employed as a Project General Manager in the
`
`Electronics Division of Toyota Motor Corporation. I worked at Toyota
`
`-2-
`
`(cid:22)
`
`
`
`headquarters in Toyota City, Japan from April 1996 to around April 2000.
`
`Between July 1999 and April 2000, I transitioned from working in Japan to
`
`working in a Toyota office in San Jose, California. In this position, I was
`
`responsible for
`
`leading
`
`the development of vehicle
`
`telematics systems,
`
`infotainment systems, including on-board and off-board navigation systems, traffic
`
`information systems, vehicle communications systems, safety applications, and
`
`automated vehicle control systems.
`
`8.
`
`In 1998,
`
`I
`
`founded
`
`the Automotive Multimedia
`
`Interface
`
`Collaboration, a consortium of car makers developing standards for in-vehicle
`
`computing and interfaces between consumer multimedia systems and consumer
`
`electronics devices. This work resulted in a variety of standards for vehicle
`
`interfaces, user interfaces and vehicle software management that were eventually
`
`transferred to other standards organizations such as ISO and the OSGi Alliance.
`
`9.
`
`In the various positions mentioned above, I was responsible for
`
`research and development projects relating to numerous vehicle information
`
`systems, user interface systems, sensory systems, control systems and safety
`
`systems, and also had the opportunity to collaborate with numerous researchers
`
`and suppliers to the auto industry. I therefore believe that I have a detailed
`
`understanding of the state of the art during the relevant period, as well as a sound
`
`basis for opining how persons of ordinary skill in the art at that time would
`
`-3-
`
`(cid:23)
`
`
`
`understand the technical issues in this case. In 2000, I founded Cogenia, Inc. to
`
`develop enterprise class data management software systems. I served as the
`
`company’s Chief Executive Officer until 2001, when I created Cogenia Partners,
`
`my current consulting firm.
`
`10. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached hereto, and it includes a
`
`listing of my prior experience in litigation matters as an expert.
`
`II.
`
`ASSIGNMENT AND MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`11.
`
`I submit this declaration in support of Toyota Motor Corporation’s
`
`petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 (“the ’375 patent”).
`
`12.
`
`I am not an employee of Toyota or of any affiliate or subsidiary
`
`thereof.
`
`13. My consulting firm, Cogenia Partners, LLC, is being compensated for
`
`my time at a rate of $500 per hour.
`
`14. My compensation is in no way dependent upon the substance of the
`
`opinions I offer below, or upon the outcome of Toyota’s petition for inter partes
`
`review (or the outcome of the inter partes review, if trial is instituted).
`
`15.
`
`I have been asked to provide certain opinions relating to the
`
`patentability of the ’375 patent. Specifically, I have been asked to provide my
`
`opinion regarding (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art to which the ’375 patent
`
`-4-
`
`(cid:24)
`
`
`
`pertains and (ii) whether claim 11 would have been obvious in view of the prior
`
`art.
`
`16.
`
`The opinions expressed in this declaration are not exhaustive of my
`
`opinions on the patentability of claim 11 of the ’375 patent. Therefore, the fact that
`
`I do not address a particular point should not be understood to indicate any opinion
`
`on my part that any claim otherwise complies with the patentability requirements.
`
`17.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed the ’375 patent and its
`
`prosecution history, as well as prior art to the ’375 patent including:
`
`a) U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327 to Schousek (“Schousek”) (Exhibit 1002);
`
`b) Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication JP 06-022939 to
`
`Tokuyama et al. (“Tokuyama”) (I reviewed a certified English
`
`translation of Tokuyama (Exhibit 1004) because Tokuyama was
`
`published in Japanese); and
`
`c) U.S. Patent No. 5,454,591 to Mazur et al. (“Mazur”) (Exhibit 1011).
`
`d) Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication JP 05-066166 to
`
`Tokuyama et al. (“Tokuyama ’166”) (I reviewed a certified English
`
`translation of Tokuyama ’166 (Exhibit 1017)).
`
`I have also reviewed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Decision Denying
`
`Institution in Case IPR2016-00291, dated June 9, 2016. (Ex. 1013, Decision
`
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Case IPR2016-00291, Paper 13.)
`
`-5-
`
`(cid:25)
`
`
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’375 PATENT
`
`18.
`
`The ’375 patent “relates to occupant restraints for vehicles.” (Ex.
`
`1001, ’375 patent at 1:7.) In particular, the patent describes “a method [of] using
`
`seat sensors to determine seat occupancy for control of airbag deployment.” (Id. at
`
`1:7-8.) According to the ’375 patent, and as was well known in the art,
`
`“supplemental inflatable restraints (SIRs) or airbags for occupant protection in
`
`vehicles increasingly involve[] equipment for the front outboard passenger seat.”
`
`(Id. at 1:1-14.) As was also well known, “[t]he passenger seat … may be occupied
`
`by a large or a small occupant including a baby in an infant seat.” (Id. at 1:18-20.)
`
`19.
`
`It was further known in the field of vehicle safety that airbags are
`
`appropriate and useful for protecting front-facing passengers from injury during a
`
`collision, but that when a rear-facing child safety seat is installed on the front
`
`passenger seat, the child occupant’s head can be dangerously close to the airbag,
`
`and airbag deployment can cause severe injury or death. Thus, the ’375 patent
`
`acknowledges that “it is desirable to prevent deployment of the airbag” in these
`
`circumstances, i.e., when an “infant seat … in a rear facing position” is present in
`
`the passenger seat. (Id. at 1:22-29.)
`
`20.
`
`The ’375 patent next refers to Schousek, which discloses (in the words
`
`of the ’375 patent) a “sensor arrangement and algorithm” that “successfully
`
`cover[s] most cases of seat occupancy.” (Id. at 1:37-39.) This includes “pressure
`
`-6-
`
`(cid:26)
`
`
`
`sensors in the passenger seat … to evaluate the weight distribution and determine
`
`the type of occupant and the facing direction of an infant seat.” (Id. at 1:34-37.)
`
`Still, according to the ’375 patent, Schousek does not “encompass every case of
`
`seat occupancy.” (Id. at 1:39-40.) The inventor of ’375 patent aims to improve
`
`upon Schousek by “detect[ing] a comprehensive range of vehicle seat occupants
`
`including infant seats for a determination of whether an airbag deployment should
`
`be permitted.” (Id. at 1:44-47.)
`
`21.
`
`The ’375 patent describes “[a] dozen [pressure] sensors, judicially
`
`located in the seat.” (Id. at 1:59-61.) The pressure sensors are monitored by a
`
`microprocessor, which computes “a total weight parameter by summing the
`
`pressures” as well as “the pattern of pressure distribution.” (Id. at 1:67-2:3.) This
`
`pattern is determined in part by “assigning a load rating to each sensor.” (Id. at
`
`2:13-16.) According to the ’375 patent, a measurement of the total force applied to
`
`the seat is insufficient for properly detecting small children and infant seats, and
`
`the “load rating” is meant to improve that detection. (Id. at 2:5-7.)
`
`22.
`
`The figures of ’375 patent illustrate the algorithm used to determine
`
`whether airbag deployment should be allowed. Figure 3, which is described as “a
`
`flow chart representing an overview of an algorithm for determining deployment
`
`permission according to the invention,” (id. at 2:33-35), is reproduced below:
`
`-7-
`
`(cid:27)
`
`
`
`23.
`
`In Figure 3, the sensor values from the 12 seat sensors are input in
`
`step 36. Then, after some pre-processing to account for sensor bias and to remove
`
`high-frequency variations in the sensor readings, the “decision algorithms” are run
`
`in step 42. (Id. at Fig. 3; 3:33-4:62.)
`
`24.
`
`Figure 8, described as “a flow chart for deployment decision,
`
`according to the invention,” (id. at 2:44-45), provides additional information about
`
`“the decision algorithm 42.” (Id. at 4:64-66; Fig. 8.)
`
`-8-
`
`(cid:28)
`
`
`
`25. As can be seen, the algorithm includes numerous steps not explicitly
`
`recited in the claims. The following description is limited to those steps most
`
`-9-
`
`(cid:20)(cid:19)
`
`
`
`pertinent to my analysis. At step 68, “total force is compared to high and low
`
`thresholds.” (Id. at 5:12-15.) If the total force detected by the sensors is “above
`
`the high threshold,” then “deployment is allowed.” (Id.) If the total force is
`
`“below the low threshold,” then “deployment is inhibited.” (Id.)
`
`26.
`
`If the total force is neither above the high threshold nor below the low
`
`threshold (i.e., between the two thresholds), then “[t]he total load rating” is also
`
`“compare[d] … to high and low thresholds” at step 72. (Id. at 5:17-21 (emphasis
`
`added).) “Deployment is allowed if the rating is above the high threshold and
`
`inhibited if below the low threshold.” (Id.) If the load rating is between the two
`
`thresholds, further processing ensues.
`
`27. According to the applicant of the ’375 patent, this use of a “load
`
`rating” is what distinguishes the ’375 patent from Schousek. Addressing Schousek
`
`during prosecution, the applicant explained that in the ’375 patent (and claim 11 in
`
`particular), “assigned load ratings are limited to a maximum value,” thereby
`
`“limit[ing] the contribution of any individual sensor to the total load rating so that
`
`the total load rating provides an indication as to whether the sensed forces are
`
`distributed over the passenger seat.” (Ex. 1005, at p. 44.)
`
`IV. CLAIMS OF THE ’375 PATENT
`
`28.
`
`The ’375 patent includes 19 claims, of which claims 1, 11, and 17 are
`
`independent claims.
`
`-10-
`
`(cid:20)(cid:20)
`
`
`
`29.
`
`I understand that only claim 11 is at issue in Toyota’s petition for
`
`inter partes review. It is reproduced below for reference:
`
`11. A method of airbag control in a vehicle having an array of force
`sensors on the passenger seat coupled to a controller for
`determining whether to allow airbag deployment based on sensed
`force and force distribution comprising the steps of:
`measuring the force sensed by each sensor;
`calculating the total force of the sensor array;
`allowing deployment if the total force is above a total threshold
`force;
`assigning a load rating to each sensor based on its measured
`force, said load ratings being limited to maximum value;
`summing the assigned load ratings for all the sensors to derive a
`total load rating; and
`allowing deployment if the total load rating is above a
`predefined total load threshold, whereby deployment is
`allowed if the sensed forces are distributed over the
`passenger seat, even if the total force is less than the total
`threshold force.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`30.
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I have read the
`
`claims from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention in December 1995. I understand that in this inter partes review, the
`
`usual “broadest reasonable construction” standard is inapplicable because the ’375
`
`-11-
`
`(cid:20)(cid:21)
`
`
`
`patent is expired, and that the claims are instead construed in the same manner as
`
`in district court. However, the different claim construction standard would not
`
`change my opinions herein.
`
`3].
`
`I have been asked to apply the following claim constructions:
`
`Term
`
`Court’s Construction
`
`
`
`“sensor array” / “array of
`force sensors”
`
`“total threshold force”
`
`“ordered grouping of [force] sensors”
`
`“a minimum force that allows airbag deployment
`based on the total force sensed by the entire sensor
`array”
`
`“pressure that is indicative ofweight”
`
`32. Additionally, I have been asked to provide my opinion on the meaning
`
`of the tenn “load rating” in claim 11. The claim language requires a “load rating”
`
`to be “assign[ed]
`
`to each sensor based on its measured force, said load ratings
`
`being limited to maximum value.” (Ex. 1001, ’375 patent at 7:11-13.) No explicit
`
`definition is provided in the ’375 patent for “load rating,” but it is described
`
`broadly as “a measure of whether the sensor is detecting some load.” (Id. at 4:2-4.)
`
`The example given in the specification states that the load rating is a value between
`
`zero and four based on the measured load.
`
`(Id. at 4:6-9.) The relationship is
`
`illustrated in Figure 6:
`
`-12-
`
`(cid:20)(cid:22)
`
`
`
`33. According to the applicant, the purpose of the “load rating” in the
`
`’375 patent is to limit the contribution of a single sensor when determining the
`
`distribution of weight across the seat. (Ex. 1005, at p. 44.) For example, if an
`
`occupant of given weight is distributed evenly across the seat, then each of the
`
`twelve sensors might have a load rating of 3, for a total of 36. If the same weight
`
`is concentrated across three sensors, those three might have the maximum load
`
`rating of 4, even though the individual sensors are measuring several times the
`
`weight of the previous example. Because the other sensors would have a load
`
`rating of 0, the total load rating would be only 12, even though the actual weight is
`
`the same.
`
`34.
`
`In my opinion, the proper construction of “load rating” is simply a
`
`numerical value that indicates whether each sensor in the claimed “array of force
`
`sensors” is detecting some load. Claim 11 is not limited to the example given in
`
`the specification, and there is no requirement that the load rating be the illustrated
`
`zero-to-four value or that the relationship follow the particulars of Figure 6.
`
`Instead, a load rating might be, for example, a binary value of zero or one,
`
`-13-
`
`(cid:20)(cid:23)
`
`
`
`provided it acts as “a measure of whether the sensor is detecting some load” as
`
`stated in the specification. (Ex. 1001, ’375 patent at 4:2-4.) Furthermore, such a
`
`binary value could limit the load ratings to a maximum value as required by claim
`
`11, and thereby limit the contribution of a single sensor to a measurement of
`
`weight distribution in the same manner described in the prosecution history. The
`
`Board adopted this construction of “load rating” in its Decision Denying Institution
`
`in Case IPR2016-00291, where it construed the term to mean “a measure of
`
`whether a given sensor is detecting some load.” (Ex. 1013, Decision at 9.)
`
`VI. UNPATENTABILITY ANALYSIS
`
`35.
`
`In my opinion, claim 11 of the ’375 is unpatentable because it would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention in December 1995.
`
`A.
`
`36.
`
`Legal Standard for Obviousness
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable and invalid if the
`
`subject matter of the claim as a whole would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of the claimed subject matter as of the time of the
`
`invention. I understand that the following factors must be evaluated to determine
`
`whether the claimed subject matter is obvious: (1) the scope and content of the
`
`prior art; (2) the difference or differences, if any, between each claim of the patent
`
`and the prior art; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`-14-
`
`(cid:20)(cid:24)
`
`
`
`invention. Unlike anticipation, which allows consideration of only one item of
`
`prior art, I understand that obviousness may be shown by considering more than
`
`one item of prior art. Moreover, I have been informed and I understand that so-
`
`called objective
`
`indicia of non-obviousness, also known as “secondary
`
`considerations,” are also to be considered when assessing obviousness, such as: (1)
`
`commercial success of the patented invention; (2) long-felt but unresolved need for
`
`the invention; (3) copying of the invention by others in the field; (4) initial
`
`expressions of disbelief by experts in the field; (5) failure of others to solve the
`
`problem that the inventor solved; and (6) unexpected results of the invention. I
`
`also understand that evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness must be
`
`commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter; in other words, there must
`
`be a nexus between the objective indicia and the claimed subject matter.
`
`B.
`
`37.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I understand that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`considered to have the normal skills and knowledge of a person in a certain
`
`technical field, as of the time of the invention. I understand that factors that may
`
`be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the
`
`education level of the inventor; (2) the types of problems encountered in the art;
`
`(3) the prior art solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which
`
`innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the
`
`-15-
`
`(cid:20)(cid:25)
`
`
`
`education level of active workers in the field. I also understand that “the person of
`
`ordinary skill” is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of the
`
`universe of available prior art.
`
`38.
`
`In my opinion, in December 1995, a person with ordinary skill in the
`
`art with respect to the technology disclosed by the ’375 patent would have at least
`
`a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, or a related field; experience in computer programming; and
`
`several years of experience in vehicle safety systems or the like.
`
`39. Based on my experience and education, I consider myself (both now
`
`and as of December 1995) to be a person of at least ordinary skill in the art with
`
`respect to the field of technology implicated by the ’375 patent.
`
`C.
`
`Obviousness of Claim 11 in View of Schousek and Tokuyama and
`Tokuyama ’166
`
`40.
`
`I understand that Schousek, Tokuyama and Tokuyama ’166 are prior
`
`art to the ’375 patent. In my opinion, they render claim 11 obvious.
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Schousek
`
`41.
`
`Schousek is generally directed to “[a]n air bag restraint system [that]
`
`is equipped with [a] seat occupant sensing apparatus for a passenger seat…” (Ex.
`
`1002, Schousek at Abstract.) Schousek’s system employs “two sets of four sensors
`
`symmetrically arranged on either side of a seat centerline … to gather pressure
`
`data” from the seat. (Id. at 2:17-19; Abstract; 4:36-48.) “The sensors are
`
`-16-
`
`(cid:20)(cid:26)
`
`
`
`preferably located just beneath the seat cover…” (Id. at 4:49-50.) Figure 2
`
`provides an example of how the sensors can be arranged in a seat:
`
`42.
`
`Schousek’s system also includes a microprocessor programmed to
`
`sample the measurements from the sensors. (Id. at 2:24-25.) Using the sensor
`
`data, the microprocessor “determine[s] a total weight parameter” and “the center of
`
`weight distribution” on the passenger seat. (Id. at 2:25–30; Abstract.) This
`
`information is then used to classify the seat occupant, for example “whether the
`
`vehicle seat is holding an occupied infant seat, a larger person, or has no
`
`occupant.” (Id. at 2:31-37.) It is also used to “determine the position of an infant
`
`seat.” (Id. at 2:37-40.) Accordingly, the processor can determine whether to
`
`enable or disable airbag deployment. (Id. at 2:40-41.)
`
`43.
`
`Figure 5A partially illustrates the occupant classification and airbag
`
`enablement process followed by Schousek’s system:
`
`-17-
`
`(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
`
`
`44.
`
`“[T]he sensors are enabled and each sensor sampled” at step 64. (Id.
`
`at 5:27-28.) The sensor outputs are calibrated, and the computed forces from the
`
`sensors are “summed to obtain a total force or weight parameter” at step 68. (Id. at
`
`5:28-31.) Then, the “center of force or weight distribution” is determined at step
`
`70. (Id. at 5:31-32.) The total weight and center of weight are used to classify the
`
`-18-
`
`(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`
`
`occupant and make an airbag deployment decision: “If the total weight parameter
`
`is greater than the maximum infant seat weight … this indicates that a larger
`
`occupant is present and a decision is made to allow deployment” as steps 72 and
`
`74. (Id. at 5:32-35.) The maximum weight of an infant seat may be set at 50
`
`pounds. (Id. at 2:32-33.) “Otherwise, if the total weight parameter is less than the
`
`minimum weight threshold for an occupant infant seat … it is determined that the
`
`seat is empty and a decision is made to inhibit deployment” at steps 76 and 78. (Id.
`
`at 5:36-39.) The minimum weight of an infant seat may be set at 10 pounds. (Id.
`
`at 2:31-32.) Thus, Schousek’s system will enable airbag deployment if the total
`
`weight detected by the array of sensors in the passenger seat is more than a high
`
`threshold of 50 pounds, and disable airbag deployment if the total weight is less
`
`than a low threshold of 10 pounds.
`
`45.
`
`If the total weight is between the low and high thresholds (10-50
`
`pounds), then “the occupant is identified as an occupied infant seat or small child,”
`
`(id. at 5:42-44), and further processing is undertaken to determine whether the
`
`occupant is a rear-facing infant seat. If the computed center of weight is towards
`
`the front of the seat, “a rear facing infant seat is detected and a decision to inhibit
`
`deployment is made” in steps 82 and 84. (Id. at 5:44-46.) If “the center of weight
`
`distribution is not forward of [a] reference line, a forward facing infant seat is
`
`detected and a decision is made to allow deployment of the air bag” in steps 82 and
`
`-19-
`
`(cid:21)(cid:19)
`
`
`
`86. (Id. at 5:47-50.) Thus, using the weight distribution pattern from the seat
`
`sensors, the invention disclosed by Schousek achieves its goal of inhibiting
`
`dangerous deployment of an airbag in the presence of a rear-facing child seat.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Tokuyama
`
`46.
`
`Tokuyama (Ex. 1004) is in the same field as the ’375 patent and
`
`Schousek, and discloses “a seat load detection apparatus, used in a seat of an
`
`automobile such as a private vehicle, for detecting the presence or absence of
`
`sitting by a passenger.” (Tokuyama, Ex. 1004 at ¶ 0001.) Tokuyama was filed by
`
`Alps Electric Co., Ltd., a preferred supplier of “pressure sensors” identified by the
`
`’375 patent specification. (Ex. 1001, ’375 patent at 3:19-21.) The detection
`
`apparatus disclosed by Tokuyama can distinguish human occupants from baggage
`
`or an empty seat. (Tokuyama, Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 0003, 0008, 0029.) It includes
`
`“multiple load detection units” (i.e., sensors) that are “distributed at least on the
`
`inner side of the surface sheet of the seat unit of the seat….” (Id. at ¶ 0004.) In
`
`the embodiment disclosed by Tokuyama, twelve sensors are distributed in the seat,
`
`labeled “S1” through “S12.” In particular, as depicted in Figures 1 and 8, sensors
`
`S1 to S9 “are disposed on the upper surface side of the seat unit 2” and sensors S10
`
`to S12 are “disposed near the front edge of the seat unit 2.” (Ex. 1004, Tokuyama
`
`at ¶ 13; Figs 1, 8.)
`
`-20-
`
`(cid:21)(cid:20)
`
`
`
`47.
`
`Tokuyama’s apparatus utilizes a “microprocessor 23” with an analog-
`
`to-digital converter (22 in Figure 6), which detects the “value of the current”
`
`flowing in each of the sensors. (Id. at ¶ 0028.) “This detection output is converted
`
`to a digital signal by an A/D converter 22, and processing is done by a
`
`microprocessor 23, serving as the distinguishing unit.” (Id.) Using this
`
`information, the microprocessor makes a passenger seat occupancy determination
`
`based on both an “ON-OFF judgment as to whether a current is flowing in each
`
`load detection unit . . . and . . . the detected value of the current at each load
`
`detection unit S1 to S12….” (Id. at ¶ 0029.) A person is determined to be present
`
`if any four or more of the nine sensors S1 to S9 are determined to be “ON” based
`
`on the current flowing through the sensors, and if the pressure exerted on the seat
`
`is distributed relatively evenly as opposed to being largely concentrated in one spot
`
`-21-
`
`(cid:21)(cid:21)
`
`
`
`or at the seat edges. (Id. at ¶¶ 0031–0032.) Figure 7 depicts the process followed
`
`by Tokuyama’s apparatus in flow chart form:
`
`48. As shown in Figure 7, in step (a), it is determined whether there is any
`
`load exerted on any of the load detection units S1 to S12 at all. (Id. at ¶ 0031.) If
`
`-22-
`
`(cid:21)(cid:22)
`
`
`
`so, the process continues. “In step (b), it is determined whether four or more of the
`
`nine load detection units S1 to S9 are ON. If fewer than three of the nine load
`
`detection units S1 to S9 are ON, it is decided that this is a load due to something
`
`other than a person.” (Id.) In steps (c) and (d), the process considers whether
`
`sensors “S2, S5, and S8” are all OFF, and whether sensors “S4, S5, and S6” are all
`
`OFF, respectively. (Id.) Looking at Figures 1 and 8, it can be seen that these five
`
`sensors form a cross in the middle of the seat, which is where one would expect the
`
`weight of a human occupant to be concentrated. Tokuyama therefore proposes that
`
`if “a person has sat down on the seat unit 2, then” these groups of sensors “will
`
`never be all OFF.” (Id.) By contrast, a suitcase (for example) would likely trigger
`
`the outer sensors in a typical passenger seat. All of these determinations in steps
`
`(b)-(d) are based on whether the seat sensors are detecting some load, rather than
`
`the amount of pressure detected at each sensor location, and thus disclose assigning
`
`a “load rating” under the construction discussed above (“a measure of whether a
`
`given sensor is detecting some load”).
`
`49.
`
`The remaining steps in Figure 7 consider the magnitude and
`
`distribution of load exerted on the seat. In particular, in step (e), Tokuyama
`
`considers whether “the total current flowing in all the load detection units S1 to S9
`
`is [less] than or equal to a prescribe[d] value (for example, 2 mA), it is decided that
`
`the load acting on the seat unit 2 is something other than a person.” (Id.)
`
`-23-
`
`(cid:21)(cid:23)
`
`
`
`(emphasis added).1 Here, the measured current corresponds to load pressure—the
`
`current increases as pressure on the seat increases. (Id. at ¶¶ 0016–0017.)
`
`Tokuyama explains that as pressure on an individual sensor increases, the area of
`
`contact between two conductors increases, reducing the resistance between them
`
`and allowing more current to flow through the sensor. (Id.) Step (e) therefore
`
`measures the magnitude of the total load measured across the nine of the twelve
`
`seat sensors on the top of the seat, and compares that total load to a threshold.
`
`50.
`
`In the following steps (f) and (g), Tokuyama performs additional
`
`processing to classify the seat occupant based on the output of sensors S1 to S9.
`
`(Id. at ¶¶ 0031, 0032; Fig. 7.) “If the amount of current detected in any load
`
`detection unit [S1 to S9] is greater than or equal to 40% of the total value of the
`
`current detected, it is decided that it is a load due to something other than a
`
`person.” (Id. at ¶ 0031.) Likewise, “if the sum of the current detected due to S4
`
`and [S6] is greater than or equal to 50%, it is decided that it is a load due to
`
`something other than a person.” (Id. at ¶ 0032.)2 In other words, the system
`
`
`1
`To explain the alteration, the original text says the opposite: “greater” rather
`than “less.” However, this sentence follows a sentence stating “less than or equal
`to a prescribed value,” and step (e) of Figure 7 states that if the sum is “less than or
`equal to the prescribed current.” (Ex. 1004, Tokuyama at ¶ 0031, Fig. 7.)
`Therefore, in my opinion, Tokuyama’s use of “greater” in this sentence is an error.
`2
`To explain the alteration, Figure 7 and some of Tokuyama’s text (including
`the first sentence of paragraph 0032) describe the sensors used in step (g) as S4 and
`S6, but in the quoted passage Tokuyama states S4 and S9. In my opinion, the
`-24-
`
`(cid:21)(cid:24)
`
`
`
`determines that the seat occupant is not a person if either (i) the weight is
`
`concentrated on one sensor, or (ii) the weight is concentrated on the two side
`
`sensors.
`
`3.
`
`Overview of Tokuyama ’166
`
`51.
`
`Tokuyama ’166 (Ex. 1017) discloses a very similar system to
`
`Tokuyama, except that Tokuyama ’166 included only sensors S1 to S9 on the seat,
`
`not sensors S10 to S12 on the front of the seat. In Tokuyama ’166, the sensors S1
`
`to S9 are the only sensors, and they are configured in an array on the seat, as
`
`depicted in Figure 2:
`
`(Ex. 1017, Tokuyama ’166 at Fig. 2.)
`
`
`correct sensors are S4 and S6, since they are located symmetrically at opposite
`sides of the seat, and the reference to S9 is an error.
`-25-
`
`(cid:21)(cid:25)
`
`
`
`52.
`
`Tokuyama ’166 also discloses the same step (b) as Tokuyama
`
`(discussed above), which determines whether 4 of the 9 sensors S1 to S9 are ON,
`
`as shown below in Figure 7 of Tokuyama ’166:
`
`-26-
`
`(cid:21)(cid:26)
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1017, Tokuyama ’166 at Fig. 7 (step (b) (“4 or more points ON?”)); ¶ 0019
`
`(“In step (b), it is determined whether four