`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`AUTOLIV ASP INC.; NIHON PLAST CO., LTD.;
`NEATON AUTO PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING, INC.;
`TAKATA CORPORATION; TK HOLDINGS INC.;
`TOYODA GOSEI CO., LTD.; HYUNDAI MOBIS CO., LTD.;
`MOBIS ALABAMA, LLC; and MOBIS PARTS AMERICA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: December 6, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JOHN M. BIRD, ESQUIRE
`Sughrue Mion, PLLC
`2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20037
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`GREGORY GONSALVES, ESQUIRE
`Gonsalves Law Firm
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, VA 22043
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`December 6, 2017, at 1:59 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, before
`Walter Murphy, Notary Public.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Please be seated. All right. Good afternoon
`everybody. Today we’ll be having the final hearings for two IPR
`proceedings, IPR2016-01790 and IPR2016-01794, both related to U.S.
`patent No. 9,043,093. We’ll start today with the hearing for IPR2016-
`01790. We’ll take a short break and then we’ll come back for the second
`hearing of the day. I am Judge Chagnon. With me here in the room is Judge
`Jefferson and Judge Moore is joining us remotely. Counsel, can I please
`have you go ahead and introduce yourselves and let us know who’ll be
`presenting today. We’ll start with Petitioner.
`MR. BIRD: Yes, hi. I’m John Bird. I’m with Sughrue Mion. I’m
`here --
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Could you speak into the microphone, please.
`MR. BIRD: I’m John Bird of Sughrue Mion. I’m here with Young
`Chon, also from Sughrue Mion. We’re here on behalf of one of the
`Petitioners, Toyoda Gosei and counsel for the other Petitioners are here with
`us, including Shri Abhyankar and Wes Achey of Alston & Bird, Bill Oldach
`of Vorys on behalf of Nihon and Neaton, Shri and Wes are on behalf of
`Autoliv and Daniel Cho of Sheppard Mullin on behalf of Mobis.
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Thank you. And Patent Owner’s counsel.
`DR. GONSALVES: My name is Dr. Gregory Gonsalves and I’ll be
`representing American Vehicular Sciences. No one is here with me today.
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Thank you so much.
`DR. GONSALVES: Petitioner’s people are welcome to encroach on
`my side as the room is so small.
`
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Well thank you for sharing. So thank you
`everyone. Please note today during your presentations that Judge Moore is
`unable to see the screen here in the room so just be sure to reference the
`demonstrative or exhibit number that you’re discussing so that he can follow
`along on his screen.
`As we set forth in the Hearing Order, each party has 30 minutes of
`time to make their presentations for this first hearing. Petitioner will present
`first followed by Patent Owner and Petitioner may reserve time to rebut any
`issues raised during Patent Owner’s presentation.
`We also just ask that the parties not interrupt each other during the
`presentations today. If there are any objections you may address them
`during your own time and if any objections arise during Petitioner’s rebuttal,
`you can just let us know after the fact. Petitioner, did you want to reserve
`time today?
`MR. BIRD: I’d like to reserve ten minutes.
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Okay, good. And so whenever you’re ready
`you can come to the podium and get started.
`MR. BIRD: Thank you, Your Honors. I’d like to go to our slide 2.
`So these grounds are essentially the same grounds that the Board has already
`decided in the Unified IPR number --
`JUDGE MOORE: Can you check the microphone? I’m unable to
`hear you here in Denver.
`MR. BIRD: Hello? Hello, can you hear me?
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Can you still not hear?
`MR. BIRD: The button was not pushed, I’m sorry. I pushed the
`button.
`
`4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`
`JUDGE MOORE: That’s better, thank you.
`MR. BIRD: So these grounds are essentially the same as the
`combinations that were presented in the Unified IPR 364. So we have
`provided grounds on different and additional claims, that’s one of the
`differences that our IPR reaches all the claims, and to summarize you’ve got
`grounds 1 through 8 based on Leising and Lau and grounds 9 through 16
`based on Karlow and Lau. So in my demonstratives I will group the two
`grounds together, the grounds together in these two categories. The Patent
`Owner has not separately argued patentability for dependent claims so that’s
`one reason this is kind of an efficient way to do that.
`So I’d like to talk about three important points. One is for the
`combination of Leising versus Lau, which is in the grounds already in the
`IPR and then the combination of Karlow and Lau, and we’d also like to talk
`about Patent Owner’s allegations of objective evidence. So this is kind of
`the three topics that I’d like to discuss.
`Referring to slide No. 3, this slide shows the side curtain air bag 41 in
`Leising and our position essentially is that it would have been obvious to
`extend Leising’s side curtain air bag in view of the regulatory environment
`at the time and the understanding of a person having ordinary skill in the art
`which we, Dr. Rouhana, has explained. We also rely on Lau for its
`disclosure of protecting the occupants in the front and rear seats and using a
`single inflator -- air bag module with a single inflator. Leising is the same
`combination that the Board has already found unpatentable in the Unified
`IPR.
`
`So let’s move to slide 4. So slide 4 shows the air bag in Leising and
`the restraining webs 53, and in between the restraining webs 53 there are
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`areas or sections that are filled with air and it’s Petitioner’s position that
`these are compartments in the 364 IPR the Board found -- agreed with
`Unified Patents that these were compartments, so I guess unless the Board
`has any questions about the Leising combination I’d like to talk about the
`Karlow combination now.
`JUDGE CHAGNON: That’s fine. Go ahead.
`MR. BIRD: Thank you. So now I’ll go to slide 5. So on slide 5 the
`combination is essentially the same where you’ve got Karlow, but in this
`case the Board did not agree with the Petitioner in the Unified IPR. In that
`IPR the Board found that the Petitioners did not explain adequately how the
`shape of the air bag would be modified and our position in this one is similar
`to that of Leising where this had been obvious to extend the air bag, in this
`case the side curtain 10 in view of the same reasons, similar reasons, the
`regulatory environment and understanding of a person of ordinary skill in
`the art at the time of the earliest priority date of this patent.
`In our petition and the evidence supporting our petition, Dr. Rouhana
`has explained in detail why the -- what this modified air bag would look like
`and the shape of the modified air bag. So we believe that our petition lacks
`the deficiencies that the Board found in the Unified petition.
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Counsel, let me ask you a question here. On
`this point I know you cite to Dr. Rouhana’s testimony. Do you have other
`evidence in the record to support this reshaping of the air bag in Karlow?
`MR. BIRD: Well we have Dr. Rouhana’s testimony, as you
`mentioned, about how the shape could be different, but Dr. Rouhana has
`discussed how at the time there was an article from Clark, that Clark article
`which was understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at that time
`6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`showed a single side window air bag that extends from the front to the rear
`seat of the vehicle and, you know, Dr. Rouhana’s position is that -- and our
`position is that -- it would have been obvious if you did modify it you would
`have that kind of shape. Dr. Rouhana mentioned that shape could be
`trapezoidal, rectangular, custom shaped, and let’s go to slide 12.
`So the person of ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton and if
`they did modify the shape of the air bag they wouldn’t modify it in a way
`that would not protect the head of the vehicle driver. Patent Owner’s expert,
`Mr. Nranian, acknowledged that the air bag designer would look to different
`sizes and shapes when he was asked about the side of a front passenger air
`bag. We think that’s equally applicable to a side curtain air bag.
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Thank you.
`MR. BIRD: So I guess I just wanted to go to slide 33. So Patent
`Owner has provided several pages in their response about alleged evidence
`of nonobviousness, long felt need, commercial success, things like that but
`they didn’t have a nexus where they connected the evidence that is co-
`extensive with the claimed invention.
`I’d like to go to slide 9, please. So slide 9, here we have the single air
`bag arranged to deploy into the passenger compartment. So it’s a single
`airbag and then the other one’s the plurality of compartments so these are the
`two we’re talking most about in this hearing, but there’s also several other
`features including a single gas providing system that has only one inflator
`and that inflator is arranged apart from the single air bag. All the other
`independent claims have a feature similar to this and that’s an example of
`the feature that Patent Owner has provided no nexus with, as well as the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`feature of the plurality of compartments in flow communication with each
`other in their objective evidence of nonobviousness.
`JUDGE MOORE: Counsel, so is it your position that the allegedly
`commercially successful embodiment does not include those elements of the
`claimed invention?
`MR. BIRD: It is our position that there’s been no evidence that those
`commercial embodiments would include these features, for example, a gas
`providing system that has one inflator and the inflator being arranged apart
`from the air bag. There’s no discussion of that whatsoever in the briefing in
`the evidence.
`JUDGE MOORE: Thank you.
`MR. BIRD: So I guess if you don’t have any more questions I’ll just
`– thank you, Your Honors, and I’ll wait for the rebuttal.
`JUDGE CHAGNON: All right.
`MR. BIRD: Thank you.
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Judge Moore, did you have any further
`questions?
`JUDGE MOORE: Counsel, let me ask you to go back a little bit. Can
`you step back to Karlow, I think it was slide 12. Now, as I understand it,
`this air bag of Karlow moves downward along -- I forget what it’s called --
`but moves down along the slide when the air bag inflates, correct?
`MR. BIRD: That’s right, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MOORE: So in your allegedly obvious combination, this
`slide would be located at the rear of the vehicle behind the rear passenger; is
`that correct?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`
`MR. BIRD: That’s correct, Your Honor. It would be located at the
`rear. Looking at this figure the way that it could look like, or would look
`like, maybe it could be a rectangular configuration as mentioned by Dr.
`Rouhana. In that case looking at the fingers that come down in this figure
`on the right, those fingers would be extended longer downward or it could
`be a custom shape, for example. It could have the same shape in the front of
`the vehicle as in this figure and then extend backwards in a, you know, line
`towards the back of the vehicle.
`JUDGE MOORE: How would that air bag avoid the front seatbelt?
`MR. BIRD: So that air bag would avoid the front seatbelt in the same
`way as other seatbelts, I mean, sorry, as other embodiments because that
`railing that sends it down, number 30, would be in the back of the vehicle.
`Dr. Rouhana has explained in detail how that seatbelt would be avoided. I’ll
`go to Dr. Rouhana’s testimony.
`So, for example, paragraph 180 of Dr. Rouhana’s declaration
`describes how the modified air bag could pass just inboard of the seatbelt D-
`ring on the B-Pillar and explains how that could come down and would
`avoid the seatbelt. Dr. Rouhana also in his declaration says that the seatbelt
`could be moved to the side of the seat and also the patent itself, the ’093
`patent, doesn’t describe anything about avoiding the seatbelt. So it is our
`position that this is something that was known in the art to avoid the seatbelt.
`JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Thank you, counsel.
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Do you have anything further?
`MR. BIRD: Thank you, Your Honors.
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`
`DR. GONSALVES: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I think that it
`would be easier because we have one judge remotely that we all look at the
`hard copies of the slides that I’ve prepared and in addition, I’m not going to
`limit my presentation to only the slides and I’ll be referring also to the
`record during the presentation. So I have additional copies for everyone, so
`if I could please approach the bench.
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Of course.
`(Counsel approached the bench.)
`MR. BIRD: Can we have a copy of the ones that were served to the
`Board?
`DR. GONSALVES: Yes, I gave them copies twice actually. So if
`you can refer to page 2 of the slide presentation it gives you an overview of
`the items that I’ll be speaking about this afternoon. First I’ll briefly discuss
`claim construction and in particular there’s a group of phrases; a single air
`bag, single air bag extending across at least two seating positions of two
`rows of a passenger compartment of a vehicle, and a plurality of
`compartments.
`I’ll also be discussing why the challenged claims would not have been
`obvious over Karlow and Lau. I’ll also be discussing why the challenged
`claims would not have been obvious over the combination of Leising and
`Lau, and I’ll also discuss the objective indicia of nonobviousness, that’s
`what’s the patentability of the patent claims.
`If you can please turn to slide 3. It’s Patent Owner’s position that the
`claim term single air bag should be construed as one air bag. The reasons
`for this are expressed in detail in the Patent Owner response but if you look
`at any dictionary, in fact we have an exemplary dictionary at Exhibit 2003, it
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`defines the term single as consisting of one as opposed to or in contrast with
`many, or consisting of only one in number. And also, as I’ve indicated at
`the lower portion of slide No. 3, throughout the specification there is
`pictured the air bag being a single air bag and this is Exhibit 1001 which is
`the ’093 patent and there are multiple figures where the single air bag is
`disclosed and illustrated as consisting of one air bag.
`If you turn to slide No. 4. The claim limitation a single air bag
`extending across at least two seating positions, and in the brackets I have
`two rows. That requirement is evident by looking at the language in the
`claim surrounding what I have quoted, that it’s the single air bag extends
`across the two rows of the passenger compartment of the vehicle air bag.
`Patent Owner’s position is that this claim limitation should be
`construed as one air bag extending across a first seating position of a first
`row of seats and a second seating position of a second row of seats, as well
`as the area between the first and second seating positions, and the support
`for that is described in the Patent Owner response but there are multiple
`locations in the specification of the ’093 patent including the figures that I
`referred to on the previous slide which do indeed show one air bag extending
`across a first and second rows including the area between the seating
`positions of those rows.
`If you can turn to slide No. 5, this is our position on the claim
`limitation of plurality of components. The proper construction under the
`Phillips standard is of a compartment as a separate chamber and therefore
`the claim phrase plurality of compartments means two or more separate
`chambers and this construction is consistent with the ordinary meaning of
`the term compartment as indicated in the dictionary, for instance, the
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`exemplary one we have in Exhibit 2002 as a separate room section or
`chamber.
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Counsel, I’d like to ask you about the
`construction. So you’re proposing that compartment can be construed as a
`separate chamber. Can you reconcile that with the other language in the
`claim that requires these compartments to be in flow communication with
`each other?
`DR. GONSALVES: Sure. You can have -- I think it’s very common
`in every day life that you can have compartments that have an opening
`between the two compartments so that air can pass from one compartment to
`the other but they’re still separate compartments. For instance, if I were to
`have a box that’s enclosed and I were to put a divider on that box, then it
`would be two compartments in the box, one on the left of the divider and
`one on the right of the divider. If I put a little hole in that divider you would
`still have two compartments, there would just be a flow communication
`between the two.
`Conversely, we’re in one room here. If someone were to erect a pole,
`for example, or a couple of poles in the middle of the room I don’t think any
`of us would conclude that the room is now separated into multiple
`compartments. We would say it’s still one room with some poles in the
`middle. So that is our construction of plurality of compartments as being a
`separate chamber is still consistent with having an opening in the divider
`that separates the chambers.
`JUDGE CHAGNON: So applying this to your arguments about the
`Leising reference, why would this figure 8 in Leising in your view not
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`disclose compartments where there’s an opening in the wall, for example, to
`use your analogy?
`DR. GONSALVES: Sure. I think the answer is what I just described.
`I think you have to be able to define the chambers and, for instance, if you
`were to have a pole in the middle of this room we wouldn’t have two
`chambers, one where you’re sitting and one where I’m sitting, we would still
`just have one room --
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Right.
`DR. GONSALVES: -- with a pole in the middle.
`JUDGE CHAGNON: So let’s change it a little bit. What if we have a
`wall that goes all the way from one end to the other but doesn’t quite touch
`the ceiling? Would that fall into your definition?
`DR. GONSALVES: Well I think in the case of just to talk about the
`particular air bag in Leising, it does not qualify as a air bag with multiple
`compartments there in flow communication because the opening -- well,
`what is alleged to be the opening is just too large. The opening has to be a
`relatively small volume or area, otherwise you’re in the situation where
`pretty much anything could be considered to be multiple chambers if there’s
`any object within the chamber.
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Okay. So just to make sure I’m clear on your
`position, your position is that it’s somewhat relative of how big the opening
`can be compared to the, let’s say wall for lack of a better word, separating
`the chambers?
`DR. GONSALVES: I think that’s how a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would view it, would distinguish the example where you have one
`room that happens to have an object in it from where you have two distinct
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`rooms that you can see the boundaries of the chambers and it happens to
`have a relatively small opening between the chambers.
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Thank you.
`DR. GONSALVES: You’re welcome.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Counsel, while we’re still on that topic, where
`in the specification of the patent at issue is there any guidance on what is a
`compartment, what is not a compartment, or whether the opening is big
`enough or not qualifies a compartment? Sorry, my colleague couldn’t hear
`me. Let me repeat the question.
`DR. GONSALVES: Sure.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Is there any guidance in the patent that would
`help us discover when the compartment is large enough or small enough, to
`use my terms for it, to qualify as a separate compartment in accordance with
`your construction here?
`DR. GONSALVES: The answer is yes, there is, and I remember
`writing about this in the Patent Owner response and referring to particular
`locations in the specification and I’m diligently searching for that now.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: That’s in your papers then?
`DR. GONSALVES: Yes, I know it’s definitely in the papers and it
`was definitely referred to in Mr. Nranian’s declaration.
`JUDGE CHAGNON: Thank you.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you.
`DR. GONSALVES: If you could turn to slide No. 6. Karlow and Lau
`would not have taught a single air bag extending across at least two seating
`positions of two rows of a passenger compartment of a vehicle. As seen in
`the annotated figure, and this is the reasoning that the Board gave in
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`IPR2016-00364, if the air bag of Karlow is elongated and the track placed
`behind the rear seat as proposed by Petitioner, the side air bag coverage for
`the front seat occupant necessarily would be reduced unless the shape of the
`air bag were modified in some way in addition to relocating the track and
`extending the air bag. That was from pages 34 and 35 of your final decision.
`You know, there could be an infinite number of shapes of an air bag
`and Petitioners have not presented evidence that one of ordinary skill in the
`art at the time of the priority date of the ’093 patent would have selected the
`particular shape that’s disclosed and claimed in the ’093 patent. If you think
`about it, there could be a polygon with three sides, for example. Could be a
`triangle, there are multiple types of triangles. From what my children tell
`me from middle school when I help them with their homework, there’s an
`isosceles triangle, there’s an equilateral triangle, you could also have a
`polygon with four sides or five sides all the way up to 10,000 sides. And so
`it would not have been obvious for -- and there is no evidence in the record
`other than an expert statement that is not supported by documented evidence
`-- indicating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the
`particular type of air bag that’s disclosed and claimed in the ’093 patent and
`I also note that my colleague representing the Petitioner mentioned the
`reference Clark when he indicated that Clark may possibly be evidence that
`it would have been obvious to change the shape of Karlow, of the air bag.
`With respect to Clark, that was not part of Petitioner’s proposed
`grounds of rejection and also Mr. Nranian addressed Clark and he describes
`it, and this is at Exhibit 2005, paragraph 153, as Clark disclosing concepts
`only and would not have provided a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`time of the ’093 patent to achieve the claimed invention with a reasonable
`expectation of success.
`Mr. Nranian also noted that a door mounted air bag system like the
`one disclosed by Clark cannot get into position to provide head protection in
`most accidents and crashes and also can cause injury to out-of-position
`occupants, and he explained this in detail in his declaration at Exhibit 2005,
`paragraph 153. And so even if Clark were considered, even if it was part of
`the proposed grounds of rejection, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`not have known to use the teachings of Clark in order to come up with a
`shape of an air bag which matches that which is disclosed and claimed in the
`’093 patent.
`JUDGE MOORE: Counsel, a moment ago we were talking about the
`shape of the air bag of Karlow and Petitioner’s position that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have modified that, and you were saying that
`the air bag that would result would be triangular, or some type of
`quadrilateral, perhaps a trapezoid, and that that would not satisfy the claims.
`For example, looking at claim 1 of the ’093 patent, what limitation of that
`claim requires particular shape of the air bag?
`DR. GONSALVES: I think I --
`JUDGE MOORE: Can you point me to a limitation that would not be
`satisfied by, for example, a trapezoidal air bag or a triangular air bag?
`DR. GONSALVES : Right. I think I may not have explained my
`position properly. What I tried to say is that there are an infinite number of
`shapes of an air bag that are available because when you think about it, there
`could be a shape that has three sides, a polygon that has three sides. It could
`be a polygon that has four sides, could be a polygon that has 10,000 sides or
`16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`a 100,000 sides, so there’s no evidence in the record that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have picked the particular air bag that’s
`disclosed and claimed in the ’093 patent as opposed to any one of these.
`Now with respect --
`JUDGE MOORE: Is there a particular shape that’s required by the
`’093 patent is what I’m getting to. You say that a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would not have chosen the particular shape of air bag required by the
`’093 patent, but I’m trying to understand is what shape of air bag is required
`by the ’093 patent.
`DR. GONSALVES: Okay. I was actually retrieving the patent claim
`which is on my computer. So if you were to look at claim 1, yes, you’re
`right. Claim 1 doesn’t describe a particular shape but it does have certain
`features that the air bag must have. It has to be a single air bag extending
`across at least two seating positions of the passenger compartment of the
`vehicle, the single air bag arranged to deploy into the passenger
`compartment along the lateral side of the vehicle.
`So it’s a situation where you have the idea of having air bags is to
`provide protection for the passengers. In this case what’s claimed and
`described in the ’093 patent is a single air bag that provides that protection
`by extending across both rows of the vehicle, one air bag that does that, and
`that’s how it provides the protection.
`So there are multiple options that are available and there isn’t
`evidence in the record indicating that a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`the time of the priority date of the ’093 patent would have picked the
`particular option that would have provided protection to both the front seat
`passenger and the rear seat passenger. Remember the test is whether a
`17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art could have achieved the claimed invention
`with a reasonable expectation of success. And with respect --
`JUDGE MOORE: So is it your position -- so just for example
`assuming arguendo that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`reason to choose the trapezoidal shape shown in shading on slide 6, is there
`anything about that shape -- obviously you disagree that it would have been
`obvious to choose that shape -- but assuming it was obvious, is there
`anything about that shape that would not satisfy claim 1?
`DR. GONSALVES: Sure. This shape would not have achieved the
`claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success because it would
`not have provided protection for the front passenger because you can see
`there’s an enormous opening there. If there was a side impact the person’s
`head that happened to be sitting on that side of the car would smash into the
`glass which is not -- which would not qualify as a reasonable expectation of
`success because the idea behind air bags is to protect the passenger from
`harm.
`
`And as I said before, with respect to -- the Petitioner referred to Clark
`but Clark has already been discussed in Mr. Nranian’s declaration and he
`pointed out that the type of door mounted air bag system like the one
`disclosed in Clark would not have gotten into position quickly enough in
`order to meet the idea behind the air bag which is how you measure success
`of an air bag which is protecting the passengers.
`Now I’ll quickly go to some features of Leising and Lau that are
`missing and that begins on slide No. 7, and Leising and Lau would not have
`taught a single air bag extending across at least two seating positions of two
`rows of the passenger compartment of the vehicle. The expert in the
`18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`previous IPR admitted that there would be a space between the two air bags
`in Lau.
`If you look at the following slide, which is slide No. 8, that space is
`clearly visible on the B-Pillar. There would be no protection there for a
`passenger on the side or of the vehicle from a side impact in that area that’s
`unprotected. The slide No. 9 shows this even more clearly.
`JUDGE MOORE: But counsel, is this actually the argument
`Petitioner is making? Is Petitioner arguing that Lau discloses a single air
`bag extending across two seating positions or is Petitioner arguing that it
`would have been obvious to extend the air bag of Leising to extend across
`multiple seating positions?
`DR. GONSALVES: Okay. I can answer that question in two parts.
`The first part is that the Petitioner’s relied upon the combination of Leising
`and Lau. Leising does not disclose any protection from the back seat and so
`when you bring in Lau then, and looking at the teachings of Lau, this is the
`way Lau teaches to provide protection to the back seat. It teaches providing
`two air bags, one for the back, one for the front and not a single air bag as
`claimed, and so the second part of my answer which is the topic that I intend
`to get to as soon as I go through slides 9 and 10 very quickly, is why a
`person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of the ’093 patent,
`would not have simply extended Leising’s air bag system to cover rear seat.
`So if you can have patience for about 90 seconds we’ll get to the second
`portion of my answer.
`JUDGE MOORE: Thank you.
`DR. GONSALVES: So looking at slide No. 9, it’s clear that Lau
`teaches providing protection to the rear seat by a separate air bag. In the
`19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`picture at the top you see the two air bags identified by numbers 40 and 42,
`40 is on the right, 42 is on the left. You can see that there are two distinct air
`bags, not one air bag.
`The next p
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
