Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: June 17, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AISIN SEKI CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`____________
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
`JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`IPR2016-01382 - Ex. 1014
`Toyota Motor Corp., Petitioner
`(cid:20)
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`Petitioner Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd. filed a Petition requesting an inter
`partes review of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 (“the ’375 patent”).
`Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner Signal IP Inc., filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),
`which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . .
`the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.”
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`conclude the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of the
`challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not authorize an inter partes review
`to be instituted as to claim 11 of the ’375 patent.
`I.
`BACKGROUND
`The ’375 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`A.
`The ’375 patent is titled “Method of Inhibiting or Allowing Airbag
`Deployment” and issued on March 24, 1998. The ’375 patent discloses that
`vehicles may have airbags for protecting passengers in a front passenger seat
`and that it is desirable to inhibit the airbags from deploying if the front
`passenger seat is occupied by a small child or an infant in a rear facing car
`seat. Ex. 1001, 1: 12–29. The ’375 patent, thus, discloses a method of
`detecting a type of seat passenger and determining the seating position of the
`passenger to allow or inhibit airbag deployment. Id. at 1:44–50.
`The ’375 patent discloses a vehicle passenger seat having an array of
`pressure sensors. The array of sensors is depicted in Figure 7 of the ’375
`patent, and Figure 7 is reproduced below.
`
`2
`
`(cid:21)
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`Figure 7 depicts the seat having 12 sensors arranged as follows: 1) a left pair
`of sensors 1 and 2, 2) a right pair of sensors 11 and 12, 3) a front pair of
`sensors 6 and 7, 4) a rear pair of sensors 3 and 10, and 5) a center group of
`sensors 4, 5, 8, and 9. Ex. 1001 at 3:21–29.
`Sensors 1–12 are also arranged in the overlapping localized areas as
`follows: 1) sensors 1, 6, 7 and 12 in a front group, 2) sensors 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9,
`10, and 11 in a rear group, 3) sensors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 in a left group,
`and 4) sensors 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 in a right group. Id. at 4:19–24.
`An algorithm calculates a set of decision measures 40 based upon the
`output of the sensors. Id. at 3: 48–49; Fig. 4. The first decision measures
`are a total force, which is the sum of the sensor output values, and a fuzzy
`contribution for the total force. Id. at 3:49–67. The second decision
`measures are a load rating for each sensor, a total load rating, and a fuzzy
`contribution for the total load rating. Id. at 4:1–17. The load rating is a
`measure of whether the sensor is detecting some load, and the total load
`rating is the sum of the load ratings for each sensor. Ex. 1001 at 4:2–4, 9–
`11. The third decision measures are a force and fuzzy contribution for each
`
`3
`
`(cid:22)
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`pair of sensors and for the center group. Id. at 4:30–47.
`The algorithm also checks for force concentration. Id. at 4:18. The
`’375 patent states:
`[A] check is made for force concentration in a localized area.
`. . . The algorithm determines if the pressure is all concentrated
`in one group by summing the load ratings of the sensors in each
`group and comparing to the total load rating. If the rating sum
`of any group is equal to the total rating, a flag is set for that group
`(all right, all front etc.).
`Id. at 4:18–24.
`Based upon the set of decision measures, a decision algorithm determines
`whether airbag deployment should be allowed or inhibited. Id. at 4:64–66.
`The decision algorithm is depicted in Figure 8, and Figure 8 is reproduced
`below.
`
`Figure 8 depicts a flow chart of the deployment decision algorithm.
`
`4
`
`(cid:23)
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`Whenever an inhibit or allow decision is made, that decision is controlling
`and all other conditions lower on the chart are bypassed. Id. at 5:9–11.
`First, the decision algorithm determines if rails of an infant seat are
`detected and whether the infant seat is forward or rear facing. Id. at 4:65–
`5:9. Deployment is allowed for a forward facing seat and inhibited for a rear
`facing seat. Id. at 5:1–3.
`
`If rails are not detected <60>, the total force is compared to high
`and low thresholds <68>.
`If it is above the high threshold
`deployment is allowed and if below the low threshold the
`deployment is inhibited. Otherwise, if the localized force for a
`sensor group is above a threshold and the flag corresponding to
`that group is set <70>, deployment is allowed. If not, the next
`step is to compare the total load rating to high and low thresholds
`<72>. Deployment is allowed if the rating is above the high
`threshold and inhibited if below the low threshold. Each of the
`sensor pairs for front, left, right, and rear are compared to
`threshold values <74–80>. If any of them are above its allowed.
`If not, the center group force is compared to a threshold <82> to
`decide upon allowance.
`Finally, the total fuzzy value is
`compared to a threshold <84> to allow deployment if it is
`sufficiently high, and if not the deployment is inhibited.
`Id. at 5:12–27.
`
`Challenged Claim
`B.
`Claim 11 of the ’375 patent is independent and recites:
`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;
`
`5
`
`(cid:24)
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`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.
`Ex. 1001, 7:1–20.
`
`Related Proceedings
`C.
`Both parties state that the ’375 patent is the subject of numerous
`district court proceedings, including Signal IP, Inc. v. Toyota Motor North
`America, Inc. et al, Case No. 2-15-cv-05162 in the U.S. District Court for
`the Central District of California. Pet. 1; Paper 4, 2–3.
`The ’375 patent was the subject of Ex Parte Reexamination
`No. 90/013,386; however, claim 11 was not reexamined. See Pet. 12.
`Claims of the ’375 patent other than claim 11 were the subject of a
`petition for inter partes review, which was denied in American Honda
`Motor Co., Inc., v. Signal IP, Inc., Case IPR2015-01003 (Paper 11, October
`1, 2015).
`Claim 11 of the ’375 patent was the subject of a petition for inter
`partes review, which was denied in Toyota Motor Corporation v. Signal IP,
`Inc., IPR2016-00291 (Paper 13, June 10, 2016).
`
`6
`
`(cid:25)
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`D.
`Petitioner contends that claim 11 is unpatentable as obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over: (1) Schousek1 and Tokuyama,2 (2) Tokuyama and
`Mazur,3 and (3) Schousek, Zeidler,4 and Mano.5 Pet. 5–6.
`II. ANALYSIS
`Claim Construction
`A.
`Petitioner acknowledges that the ’375 patent expired on December 1,
`2015. See Pet. 13. “[T]he 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). Specifically, because the expired claims of the
`patent are not subject to amendment, we apply the principle set forth in
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)),
`that “words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary
`meaning,’” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question
`at the time of the invention. “In determining the meaning of the disputed
`claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record,
`examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the
`prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic
`Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips,
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327, issued December 12, 1995 (Ex. 1002,
`“Schousek”).
`2 JP 06-022939, published March 25, 1994 (Ex. 1003 and Ex. 1004 (English
`translation) “Tokuyama”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,454,591, issued October 3, 1995 (Ex. 1011, “Mazur”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,612,876, issued March 18, 1997 (Ex. 1013, “Zeidler”).
`5 M. Morris Mano, Digital Logic and Computer Design, ©1979 Prentice
`Hall, Inc. (Ex. 1014, “Mano”)
`
`7
`
`(cid:26)
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`415 F.3d at 1312–17). Moreover, only terms which are in controversy need
`to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`(Fed. Cir. 1999).
`For purposes of this Decision, the only term requiring specific
`discussion is “load rating,” recited in claim 13. According to Petitioner:
`The ’375 patent does not expressly define the term “load rating.”
`An example is provided in the specification where a “load rating”
`varies between 0 and 4. (See [Ex. 1001] at 4:6–9; see also 6.)
`Claim 11, however, is not limited to this example. Instead, the
`’375 patent confirms that “[t]he load rating is a measure of
`whether the sensor is detecting some load….” (Id. at 4:2–4.)
`Thus, while a load rating can vary between 0 and 4 (or 0 and
`some other number), it can also simply be binary value that varies
`between 0 and 1. In other words, a “load rating” is simply a
`numerical value indicating “whether [each] sensor” in the
`“sensor array” is “detecting some load.” (See Ex. 1009, at ¶ 49.)
`Pet. 15.
`Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction, stating “a
`load rating, according to the ’375 [p]atent is a measure of whether a given
`sensor is detecting some load.” Prelim. Resp. 3, 16 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:1–4).
`We agree with the parties that a “load rating” is a measure of whether a
`given sensor is detecting some load.
`B.
`Asserted Obviousness Over Schousek and Tokuyama
`Petitioner contends claim 11 of the ’375 patent would have been
`obvious over Schousek and Tokuyama. Pet. 25–42. Petitioner provides a
`claim chart identifying how it contends each feature of claim 11 is disclosed
`by the asserted references, and relies upon the Declaration of Dr. Stephen W.
`Rouhana for support. Id. at 35–42; see also Ex. 1009.
`
`8
`
`(cid:27)
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`Claim 11 requires, among other things, assigning a load rating to each
`sensor based on its measured force, and then “summing the assigned load
`ratings for all the sensors to derive a total load rating” (the “summing
`limitation”). Airbag deployment is allowed if the total load rating is above a
`predefined total load threshold. Petitioner relies only on Tokuyama as
`disclosing the summing limitation. See Pet. 25 (“Schousek discloses all the
`limitations required by claim 11 except the use of “load rating[s],” a “total
`load rating,” or a “total load threshold.”). Our discussion focuses on the
`summing limitation because Petitioner has not adequately shown that
`Tokuyama discloses this feature of the claim.
`Tokuyama describes 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.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 1.
`Figure 1 of Tokuyama is reproduced below.
`
`Tokuyama Figure 1 shows automobile seat 1 with load detection body A
`disposed between cushion material 4 and surface sheet 5. Ex. 1004 ¶ 11.
`
`9
`
`(cid:28)
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`Load detection body A includes nine load detection units (S1 to S9)
`disposed on the upper surface side of seat unit 2 and three load detection
`units (S10 to S12) disposed near the front edge of seat unit 2. Id. at
`¶¶ 13–14. In determining whether to deploy the airbag, Tokuyama uses a
`microprocessor “by way of an ON-OFF judgment as to whether a current is
`flowing in each load detection unit S1 to S12” to distinguish whether a load
`in the seat is due to a person or something else. See id. at ¶ 29. If all 12 load
`detection units are OFF it is determined that no load is acting on the seat. Id.
`at ¶ 31. If at least one of the load detection units is on, then “it is determined
`whether four or more of the nine load detection units S1 to S9 are ON,” and
`if “fewer than three of the nine load detection units S1 to S9 are ON, it is
`decided that it is a load due to something other than a person.” Id. More
`particularly, if the set of load decision units S2, S5, and S8, located in a
`vertical row in the middle of the seat, are all OFF, or the set of load decision
`units S4, S5, and S6, located in a horizontal row in the middle of the seat,
`are all OFF, then it is decided that it is a load due to something other than a
`person. Id. Additional determinations concerning the load on the seat are
`made by evaluating the total value of the current flowing between the
`conductors, which corresponds to load pressure. Id., see also id. at
`¶¶ 16–17.
`According to Petitioner, Tokuyama’s “ON-OFF judgment”:
`is a binary process: either the sensors are ON (which can be
`thought of as assigning a value of “1” to each sensor) or OFF
`(which can be thought of as assigning a “0”). As explained
`above, a “load rating” is simply [a]n indication of whether a
`sensor is “detecting some load.” [ ] Thus, by converting each
`sensor measurement into an “ON” or “OFF,” Tokuyama’s
`apparatus determines whether each of its sensors is detecting
`
`10
`
`(cid:20)(cid:19)
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`some load and “assign[s] a load rating to each sensor based on
`its measured force” as required by the final limitations of claim
`11.
`Pet. 30.
`Patent Owner has not disputed, and we assume for purposes of this
`Decision, that Tokuyama’s application of an “ON-OFF judgment” to
`load detection units corresponds to “assigning a load rating,” as
`claimed. We are not persuaded, however, that Petitioner has
`sufficiently shown that Tokuyama discloses “summing the assigned
`load ratings for all the sensors to derive a total load rating,” in light of
`Petitioner’s limited explanation:
`Tokuyama makes a passenger/no passenger classification based
`in part on whether “four or more of the nine load detection units
`S1 to S9 are ON.” (Tokuyama Ex. 1003, at ¶ 0031; Fig. 7.) In
`other words, Tokuyama’s apparatus determines a “total load
`rating” by adding up the number of sensors that are ON, and
`compares this “total load rating” to a “total load threshold” of 4
`as part of its classification algorithm. (Id.; see also Ex. 1009,
`[Andrews Dec.] at ¶ 76.)
`Pet. 30–31.
`Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, there is no express disclosure in
`Tokuyama that it is “adding up” the number of sensors that are ON. We are
`not persuaded that Petitioner has carried its burden by merely arguing that
`“[i]n other words, Tokuyama’s apparatus determines a ‘total load rating’ by
`adding up the number of sensors that are ON,” or that “this determination
`amounts to adding up the sensors’ load ratings.” Pet. 30; Ex. 1009, ¶ 66
`(emphasis added). Petitioner’s interpretation of Tokuyama is supported only
`by a limited explanation in the Declaration of Dr. Rouhana, which states:
`In [Tokuyama] step (b), “it is determined whether four or more
`of the nine load detection units S1 to S9 are ON. If fewer than
`
`11
`
`(cid:20)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`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.”
`([Ex. 1004 ¶ 31, Fig. 7].) This is a binary process: either the
`sensors are ON (which can be thought of as assigning a value of
`“1” to each sensor) or OFF (which can be thought of as assigning
`a “0”).
`. . . And, Tokuyama makes a passenger/no passenger
`classification based in part on whether “four or more of the nine
`load detection units S1 to S9 are ON.” ([Id.]) In other words,
`Tokuyama’s apparatus determines a “total load rating” by adding
`up the number of sensors that are ON, and compares this “total
`load rating” to a “total load threshold” of 4 as part of its
`classification algorithm.
`Ex. 1009, ¶ 76.
`Thus, from the evidence relied on by Petitioner, Tokuyama
`determines whether a certain number of sensors is on, but Tokuyama
`provides no indication that it is “adding up” sensor ON information. Dr.
`Rouhana’s testimony is not persuasive because it is conclusory and provides
`no explanation of why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention would have understand Tokuyama to be applying a binary system
`based on numerical values for ON and OFF, much less summing those
`numerical values to add up the load ratings of the sensors. Tokuyama does
`not state that it assigns a numerical value to any load rating, and in fact
`utilizes information to make determinations based not only on how many of
`the twelve load detection units are ON or OFF, but also about which of those
`units are ON or OFF. Petitioner does not explain how such location
`information would be reflected were Tokuyama properly viewed as a simple
`binary system. Petitioner also neglects to address how Tokuyama’s
`exclusion of three of the twelve sensors from its determination of whether
`four or more of the load detection units are ON relates to the requirement of
`claim 11 of summing the assigned load ratings for all the sensors.
`
`12
`
`(cid:20)(cid:21)
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`Petitioner’s contentions are not supported by sufficient evidence to suggest
`that any set of load rating values is summed, or needs to be summed, for
`Tokuyama to operate, even if Petitioner contends that conceptually it
`“amounts to” adding values up.
`“Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
`reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into
`account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the
`art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include
`knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is
`proper.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). In this
`case, Petitioner provides no sufficient explanation or evidence that
`Tokuyama contemplated “summing the assigned load ratings,” as claimed,
`and instead suggests that by considering the disclosure of the ’375 patent,
`Tokuyama can be thought of as accomplishing the same task. There is no
`persuasive evidence that such reasoning is limited to the level of ordinary
`skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. Moreover, reasoning that
`the disclosure of Tokuyama “amounts to” what is disclosed in the ’375
`patent necessarily includes knowledge gleaned from the ’375 patent. As a
`result, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated
`Tokuyama discloses “summing the assigned load ratings for all the sensors
`to derive a total load rating,” as required by claim 11. Accordingly, we
`conclude that Petitioner has not presented sufficient information to establish
`a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claim
`11 of the ’375 patent as obvious over Schousek and Tokuyama.
`
`13
`
`(cid:20)(cid:22)
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`Asserted Obviousness Over Tokuyama and Mazur
`C.
`Petitioner contends claim 11 of the ’375 patent would have been
`obvious over Tokuyama and Mazur. Pet. 42–54. With regard to the
`summing limitation, Petitioner again relies only on Tokuyama. Id. at 53.
`For the same reasons discussed above with respect to the Schousek and
`Tokuyama combination, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has sufficiently
`demonstrated Tokuyama discloses “summing the assigned load ratings for
`all the sensors to derive a total load rating,” as required by claim 11.
`Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not presented sufficient
`information to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the
`unpatentability of claim 11 of the ’375 patent as obvious over Tokuyama
`and Mazur.
`D.
`Asserted Obviousness Over Schousek, Zeidler, and Mano
`Petitioner contends claim 11 of the ’375 patent would have been
`obvious over Schousek, Zeidler, and Mano. Pet. 54–60. With regard to the
`summing limitation, Petitioner relies only on Zeidler and Mano. Id. at 59.
`Our discussion again focuses on the summing limitation because Petitioner
`has not adequately shown that Zeidler and Mano disclose this feature of the
`claim.
`
`Zeidler is a “device for detecting seat occupancy in a motor vehicle,
`especially for inhibiting airbag release when a seat is unoccupied.”
`Ex. 1013, Abstract. Zeidler uses a seat occupancy sensor with a front
`sensing region and a rear sensing region, each of which can be evaluated
`separately. Id. In Zeidler a simple algorithm is used to determine whether
`to deploy the airbag based on seat occupancy logic signals “V” from the
`front sensing region and “H” from the rear sensing region having “the
`
`14
`
`(cid:20)(cid:23)
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`occupancy status ‘1’ for an occupied sensing region and ‘0’ for an
`unoccupied sensing region.” Id. at 3:34–4:5. If the rear sensing region is
`occupied (in which case the “H” signal is “1”), then the airbag is deployed.
`Id. If the rear sensing region is not occupied (in which case the “H” signal is
`“0”), then the airbag is inhibited. Id.; see also Pet. 24–25.
`Mano appears to be a text book titled Digital Logic and Computer
`Design. Petitioner provides no description of Mano, stating only that “[i]t
`would have been obvious to use conventional binary logic, as in Mano,
`Ex. 1014, at pp. 25–29, 39–42, and 47–53 to achieve the desired control of
`airbag deployment.” Pet. 56. In particular, according to Petitioner:
`If this binary logic were used in the combination of
`Schousek and Zeidler, 0 would be the “predetermined total load
`threshold,” the “maximum value” would be 1, and the “total load
`rating” for all sensors would be the final binary output of either
`0 or 1. If the output exceeds the “threshold” 0, deployment
`would be allowed. (Ex. 1009 at ¶ 104).
`Pet. 56.
`Petitioner offers no sufficient reason why Mano’s “binary logic”
`would have been used at the time of the invention in Zeidler’s device or
`simple algorithm. Nor does Petitioner explain any sufficient rationale for
`why one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the binary logic of
`Mano to Zeidler. Indeed, Petitioner offers no sufficient explanation for how
`its purported use of Boolean arithmetic comports with “summing,” as that
`term is used in the ’375 patent.
`We agree with Patent Owner, that “Zeidler does not teach any scheme
`employing Boolean arithmetic in order to determine whether the sum of any
`assigned load ratings determine whether or not airbag deployment should be
`allowed.” Prelim. Resp. 21. As Patent Owner notes, “Zeidler is clear that
`
`15
`
`(cid:20)(cid:24)
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`whether or not airbag deployment is permitted depends on the output values
`of individual seat sensing regions, not their sum.” Id. Petitioner’s argument
`that “a boolean function combining a logic OR operation (x + y), i.e., a
`(cid:37)(cid:82)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:68)(cid:81) (cid:86)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:15) (cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71) (cid:68) (cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:70) (cid:36)(cid:49)(cid:39) (cid:82)(cid:83)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81) (cid:11)(cid:91)(cid:194)(cid:92)(cid:12)(cid:15) (cid:76)(cid:17)(cid:72)(cid:17)(cid:15) (cid:68) (cid:37)(cid:82)(cid:82)(cid:79)ean product, can
`be used to achieve the same result as the Table from Zeidler,” is unsupported
`by a sufficient rationale and reflects an improper reconstruction based on
`knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure. See In re McLaughlin,
`443 F.2d at 1395. Indeed, the Petition is devoid of any explanation as to
`why a Boolean function combining a Boolean sum and a Boolean product
`would have been encompassed by the summing limitation of the ’375 patent.
`We further agree with Patent Owner that if the values assigned to the V and
`H signals were applied as a simple summing operation, Zeidler does not
`teach a total load threshold of “0” or “1” because it inhibits airbag
`deployment both when only the front sensing region is occupied, that is,
`when the value of logic signal V is 1 and H is 0, as well as when no sensing
`region is occupied (in which case both V and H are 0). See Prelim. Resp.
`22. Thus, Zeidler inhibits airbag deployment under certain circumstances
`when the sum of the V and H signals is 0 or 1. Contrary to its assertion,
`Petitioner has not persuasively shown that if the output exceeds the
`“threshold” 0, deployment would be allowed. See Pet. 56.
`Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not presented sufficient
`information to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the
`unpatentability of claim 11 of the ’375 patent as obvious over Schousek,
`Zeidler, and Mano.
`
`16
`
`(cid:20)(cid:25)
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`We determine that Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing on any of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that institution of inter partes review is denied as to the
`challenged claim of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375.
`
`17
`
`(cid:20)(cid:26)
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`PETITIONER
`
`William H. Mandir
`John M. Bird
`David P. Emery
`SUGHRUE MION PLLC
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`jbird@sughrue.com
`demery@sughrue.com
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`Holly J. Atkinson
`Jason A. LaBerteaux
`ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`holly.atkinson@ascendalaw.com
`jason.laberteaux@ascendalaw.com
`
`18
`
`(cid:20)(cid:27)