UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`KEY SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,043,093 to Breed
`
`IPR Case No.:
`
`IPR2016-01872
`
`______________
`
`DECLARATION OF CRAIG WHITE
`
`Page 1 of 151
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`
`Patent No.: 9,043,093
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: BTI0135IPR1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`List of Exhibits ........................................................................................................... 5
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Qualifications and professional experience ..................................................... 8
`
`Relevant legal standards ................................................................................10
`
`III. Qualifications of one of ordinary skill in the art ...........................................11
`
`IV. State of the art ................................................................................................12
`
`A. Airbags ................................................................................................13
`B.
`Inflators................................................................................................23
`
`V. Overview of the ’093 Patent ..........................................................................30
`
`A.
`B.
`
`Summary of alleged invention of the ’093 Patent ...............................30
`Summary of ’093 Patent prosecution history ......................................31
`
`VI. Challenged claims of the ’093 Patent and proposed claim
`constructions ..................................................................................................34
`
`VII. Overview of the prior art ...............................................................................35
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 4,966,388 to Warner ..................................................35
`B.
`J.P. Publication No. 51-45366 to Kobori ............................................37
`C.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,963,412 to Kokeguchi ............................................39
`D. U.S. Patent No. 3,944,769 to Wagner .................................................40
`E.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,290,060 to Smith ....................................................41
`F.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,618,057 to Johnson .................................................42
`G. U.S. Patent No. 5,400,487 to Gioutsos ...............................................45
`H. U.S. Patent No. 5,423,571 to Hawthorn ..............................................46
`I.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,269,561 to Davis ....................................................48
`J.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,439,247 to Kolb ......................................................50
`K. U.S. Patent No. 5,588,672 to Karlow ..................................................51
`L.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,021,058 to Suzuki ...................................................53
`
`VIII. Grounds for Challenge ...................................................................................54
`
`A. GROUND 1: Independent claims 1, 26, 38-39, 42-43 and
`dependent claims 10, 12, 17-20, 27, 33, 40 and 44 are obvious
`over Warner and Kobori ......................................................................54
`1. Motivation to combine ..............................................................54
`2.
`Independent claim 1 ..................................................................60
`3.
`Dependent claim 10 ..................................................................75
`
`Page 2 of 151
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`
`Patent No.: 9,043,093
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: BTI0135IPR1
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Dependent claim 12 ..................................................................77
`4.
`Dependent claim 17 ..................................................................78
`5.
`Dependent claim 18 ..................................................................80
`6.
`Dependent claim 19 ..................................................................82
`7.
`Dependent claim 20 ..................................................................83
`8.
`Independent claim 26 ................................................................85
`9.
`10. Dependent claim 27 ..................................................................89
`11. Dependent claim 33 ..................................................................89
`12.
`Independent claim 38 ................................................................90
`13.
`Independent Claim 39 ...............................................................91
`14. Dependent claim 40 ..................................................................95
`15.
`Independent claim 42 ................................................................95
`16.
`Independent claim 43 ................................................................97
`17. Dependent claim 44 ..................................................................99
`GROUND 2: Dependent claims 5, 7, and 34-35 are obvious
`over Warner, Kobori and Kokeguchi ..................................................99
`1. Motivation to combine ..............................................................99
`2.
`Dependent claim 5 ..................................................................100
`3.
`Dependent claim 7 ..................................................................102
`4.
`Dependent claim 34 ................................................................102
`5.
`Dependent claim 35 ................................................................102
`GROUND 3: Dependent claims 6, 8 as obvious over Warner,
`Kobori and Wagner ...........................................................................103
`1. Motivation to combine ............................................................103
`2.
`Dependent claim 6 ..................................................................104
`3.
`Dependent claim 8 ..................................................................105
`D. GROUND 4: Dependent claim 9 is obvious over Warner,
`Kobori and Smith ..............................................................................105
`1. Motivation to combine ............................................................105
`2.
`Dependent claim 9 ..................................................................106
`GROUND 5: Independent claim 22 and dependent claims 11,
`24-25 and 28 are obvious over Warner, Kobori and Johnson ...........108
`1. Motivation to combine ............................................................108
`2.
`Independent claim 22 ..............................................................109
`3.
`Dependent claim 11 ................................................................113
`4.
`Dependent claim 24 ................................................................116
`5.
`Dependent claim 25 ................................................................116
`6.
`Dependent claim 28 ................................................................116
`
`E.
`
`Page 3 of 151
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`
`Patent No.: 9,043,093
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: BTI0135IPR1
`
`
`
`F.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`GROUND 6: Dependent claim 16 as obvious over Warner,
`Kobori and Gioutsos ..........................................................................117
`1. Motivation to combine ............................................................117
`2.
`Dependent claim 16 ................................................................118
`G. GROUND 7: Dependent claim 23 as obvious over Warner in
`view of Kobori, Johnson, and Hawthorn ..........................................119
`1. Motivation to combine ............................................................119
`2.
`Dependent claim 23 ................................................................120
`H. GROUND 8: Dependent claims 2, 3 as obvious over Warner,
`Kobori and Davis...............................................................................122
`1. Motivation to combine ............................................................122
`2.
`Dependent claim 2 ..................................................................123
`3.
`Dependent claim 3 ..................................................................125
`GROUND 9: Dependent claims 4, 21 as obvious over Warner,
`Kobori and Kolb ................................................................................127
`1. Motivation to combine ............................................................127
`2.
`Dependent claim 4 ..................................................................128
`3.
`Dependent claim 21 ................................................................131
`GROUND 10: Independent claims 36-37 and dependent claims
`13, 14, 15 as obvious over Warner, Kobori and Karlow ..................133
`1. Motivation to combine ............................................................133
`2.
`Independent claim 36 ..............................................................134
`3.
`Independent claim 37 ..............................................................137
`4.
`Dependent claim 13 ................................................................139
`5.
`Dependent claim 14 ................................................................140
`6.
`Dependent claim 15 ................................................................141
`K. GROUND 11: Independent claims 29 and 41 and dependent
`claim 31 as obvious over Warner, Kobori, Davis and Suzuki ..........142
`1.
`Independent claim 29 ..............................................................143
`2.
`Dependent claim 30 ................................................................147
`3.
`Dependent claim 31 ................................................................147
`4.
`Dependent claim 32 ................................................................147
`5.
`Independent claim 41 ..............................................................148
`
`IX. Conclusion ...................................................................................................150
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 151
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`
`Patent No.: 9,043,093
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: BTI0135IPR1
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Exhibits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Identifier
`Date
`Description
`No.
`’093 Patent
`May 26, 2015
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,043,093
`White
`N/A
`1002 Craig White Declaration
`White CV
`1003 Curriculum Vitae of Craig White N/A
`’238 Patent
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 5,772,238
`June 30, 1998
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 2,649,311
`Aug. 18, 1953 Hetrick
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 3,642,303
`Feb. 15, 1972
`Irish
`1007 U.S. Patent No. 4,173,356
`Nov. 6, 1979
`Ross
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 5,609,363
`Mar. 11, 1997
`Finelli
`1009 U.S. Patent No. 3,897,961
`Aug. 5, 1975
`Leising
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 5,439,247
`Aug. 8, 1995
`Kolb
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 5,588,672
`Dec. 31, 1996
`Karlow
`1012 U.S. Patent No. 5,470,103
`Nov. 28, 1995 Vaillancourt
`1013
`JP Publication No. 51-45366
`Dec. 3, 1976
`Kobori
`1014
`JP Publication No. 51-45366
`Dec. 3, 1976
`Kobori
`Certified Translation
`1015 U.S. Patent No. 5,273,309
`1016
`49 Fed. Reg. 28962
`
`Dec. 28, 1993
`July 17, 1984
`
`1017
`1018
`1019
`
`1020
`
`SAE 890602
`FMVSS 214
`SAE 916070, “Air bag system for
`side impact occupant protection”
`’093 Patent Pros. Hist., Board
`Decision on Appeal
`1021 U.S. Patent No. 3,510,150
`1022 U.S. Patent No. 5,366,241
`1023
`’093 Pros. Hist., Brown 8/6/2014
`Decl.
`IPR2016-00364 Patent Owner
`Resp.
`
`1024
`
`Lau
`49 Fed. Reg.
`28962
`SAE 890602
`1989
`FMVSS 214
`Oct. 1, 1990
`Nov. 4-7, 1991 SAE 916070
`
`on
`
`Nov. 20, 2013 Decision
`Appeal
`Wilfert
`May 5, 1970
`Nov. 22, 1994 Kithil
`Aug. 6, 2014
`’093 PH, Brown
`8/6/2014 Decl.
`IPR2016-00364
`Patent
`Owner
`Resp.
`
`Aug. 29, 2016
`
`Page 5 of 151
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`
`Patent No.: 9,043,093
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: BTI0135IPR1
`
`Exhibits
`
`
`
`Identifier
`Date
`Breed ’453
`Jan. 27, 2009
`Oct. 30, 1990 Warner
`Oct. 16, 1990
`Kokeguchi
`Mar. 16, 1976 Wagner
`Mar. 1, 1994
`Smith
`Apr. 8, 1997
`Johnson
`Mar. 28, 1995
`Gioutsos
`June 13, 1995
`Hawthorn
`Dec. 14, 1993
`Davis
`May 3, 1977
`Suzuki
`214
`Jan. 27, 1988
`FMVSS
`Side Impact (1-
`27-1988)
`
`214
`FMVSS
`Side Impact (8-
`19-1988)
`
`Breed ’464
`Ideal Gas Law
`Bernoulli’s
`Principle
`Appeal Brief
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`No.
`1025 U.S. Patent No. 7,481,453
`1026 U.S. Patent No. 4,966,388
`1027 U.S. Patent No. 4,963,412
`1028 U.S. Patent No. 3,944,769
`1029 U.S. Patent No. 5,290,060
`1030 U.S. Patent No. 5,618,057
`1031 U.S. Patent No. 5,400,487
`1032 U.S. Patent No. 5,423,571
`1033 U.S. Patent No. 5,269,561
`1034 U.S. Patent No. 4,021,058
`1035 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to
`Revise Federal Motor Vehicle
`Safety Standard 214 - Side Impact
`Protection
`1036 Advanced Notice of Proposed
`Rulemaking
`to Revise Federal
`Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
`214 - Side Impact Protection
`Aug. 5, 1997
`1037 U.S. Patent No. 5,653,464
`N/A
`1038 Definition of Ideal Gas Law
`1039 Definition of Bernoulli’s Principle N/A
`
`Aug. 19, 1988
`
`1040
`
`’093 Pros. Hist., Appeal Brief (06-
`28-2013)
`
`June 28, 2013
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 151
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`
`Patent No.: 9,043,093
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: BTI0135IPR1
`
`I, Craig White, hereby declare as follows:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Key Safety Systems,
`
`Inc. in the matter of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,043,093 to Breed
`
`(“the ’093 Patent”; a true and accurate copy attached as Ex. 1001).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at a rate of
`
`$300/hour. My compensation in no way depends on the outcome of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`In preparation of this declaration, I have studied the exhibits as listed
`
`in the Exhibit List shown above in my report.
`
`4.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`a.
`
`The documents listed above as well as additional patents and
`
`documents referenced herein;
`
`b.
`
`The relevant legal standards provided to me, including the
`
`standard for obviousness provided in KSR International Co. v.
`
`Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and any additional
`
`documents cited in the body of this declaration; and
`
`c. My knowledge and experience based upon my work and study
`
`in this area as described below.
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 151
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`
`Patent No.: 9,043,093
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: BTI0135IPR1
`
`Qualifications and professional experience
`
`5.
`
`I have provided my full background in the curriculum vitae that is
`
`
`
`I.
`
`attached as Exhibit 1003.
`
`6.
`
`For the past 29 years, I have been active in the area of automotive
`
`safety. As a founding member and director of Automotive Systems Laboratory
`
`(ASL) from 1987 to 1997, I grew a team of researchers from 5 people to over 75
`
`people all focused on next generation vehicle interior and external sensing to
`
`mitigate and/or reduce injury in vehicle crashes. This work included the
`
`development and study of interior position sensing, unique methods of front and
`
`side crash sensing, and various methods of occupant energy management. In this
`
`role, I was required to have an understanding of various aspects of vehicle
`
`occupant protection systems related to the function and purpose of every passive
`
`safety device in the safety system including inflators, airbags, seatbelts, and knee
`
`bolsters, among others, in order to design the overall electronic control systems
`
`that reduced injury. During my time with ASL, I was also involved in the
`
`evaluation of an early inflator design with Rocket Research, which included a
`
`unique propellant and an aspirating housing.
`
`7.
`
`From 1997 to 2003, I was the chief technology officer and senior vice
`
`president of engineering at Breed Technologies. In this role, I had direct
`
`responsibility for worldwide engineering and R&D with a staff of hundreds of
`
`Page 8 of 151
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`
`Patent No.: 9,043,093
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: BTI0135IPR1
`
`
`
`engineers. I was responsible for all of the company’s technical plans and
`
`developments including all of the major safety components such as driver and
`
`passenger airbags, side airbags, side curtains, a family of stored gas and
`
`pyrotechnic inflators, vehicle electronics, steering wheels and the overall system
`
`engineering to make them all work together to mitigate and/or reduce injury.
`
`8.
`
`Since 1987, I have filed and been granted 17 patents in the area of
`
`automotive safety, including patents related to crash sensing, auto-venting, front
`
`and side sensing, energy management, and airbags for reducing hazards for out-of-
`
`position occupants. These areas are all relevant to the subject matter of the ’093
`
`Patent.
`
`9.
`
`To date, I continue to be active in the automotive safety industry
`
`through the evaluation of new technologies and companies for the purpose of
`
`investment. My career spans the period of interest of the ’093 Patent including the
`
`build-up of technology for 8 years before December 1995 until today. Importantly,
`
`I not only have experience in the development of products in the areas relevant to
`
`the subject matter of the ’093 Patent, but I have also been in the position, due to
`
`my industry roles, to evaluate and understand many other relevant products and
`
`technologies.
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 151
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`
`Patent No.: 9,043,093
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: BTI0135IPR1
`
`
`
`II. Relevant legal standards
`
`10.
`
`I have been asked to provide opinions on the claims of the ’093 Patent
`
`in light of the prior art.
`
`11.
`
`It is my understanding that a claimed invention is unpatentable under
`
`35 USC § 102 if a prior art reference teaches every element of the claim as
`
`arranged in the claim. Further, it is my understanding that a claimed invention is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention and
`
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
`
`the time the alleged invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`to which the subject matter pertains. I also understand that an obviousness analysis
`
`takes into account factual inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and
`
`the claimed subject matter.
`
`12.
`
`It is my understanding that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has
`
`recognized several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to
`
`show obviousness of the claimed subject matter in view of the Supreme Court’s
`
`holding in KSR. See, e.g., Manual of Patent Examining Procedures (MPEP)
`
`§2141. Some of these rationales include the following: combining prior art
`
`elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; simple
`
`substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; a
`
`Page 10 of 151
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`
`Patent No.: 9,043,093
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: BTI0135IPR1
`
`
`
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions;
`
`applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results;
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; and some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in
`
`the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`III. Qualifications of one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`13.
`
`I have reviewed the ’093 Patent, those patents cited in the priority
`
`chain of the ’093 Patent, as well as the prior art documents. Based on this review
`
`and my knowledge of occupant protection systems for vehicles, it is my opinion
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in
`
`engineering and work experience in the design of vehicle occupant protection
`
`systems, or the equivalent. I am familiar with the level of knowledge and the
`
`abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed
`
`invention based on my experience in the industry.
`
`14.
`
`I understand this determination is made at the time of the invention,
`
`which I understand the patentee purports as being the December 12, 1995 filing
`
`date of parent Application No. 571,247 that issued as U.S. Patent No. 5,772,238
`
`(“the ’238 Patent”; a true and accurate copy attached as Ex. 1004).
`
`Page 11 of 151
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`
`Patent No.: 9,043,093
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: BTI0135IPR1
`
`
`
`IV. State of the art
`
`15.
`
`In general, an airbag is a vehicle safety device that automatically
`
`inflates upon collision or impact of the vehicle with another object. An airbag is
`
`considered a passive restraint and is designed to act as a cushion providing an
`
`energy absorbing surface between the vehicle occupant and the interior of the
`
`vehicle (e.g., the steering wheel, instrument panel, structural body frame pillars,
`
`headliner, side panel, and/or windshield).
`
`16.
`
`It is my opinion that airbags were conceived over sixty years ago in an
`
`attempt to protect and shield passengers of a vehicle from injury during emergency
`
`braking and vehicle collisions. My opinion is supported by U.S. Patent No.
`
`2,649,311 to John W. Hetrick (“Hetrick”; a true and accurate copy attached as Ex.
`
`1005) titled “Safety Cushion Assembly for Automotive Vehicles,” which issued
`
`Aug. 18, 1953. Hetrick discloses a system having “an inflatable cushion assembly
`
`adapted to be mounted in the passenger compartment of a vehicle, and arranged to
`
`be inflated responsive to sudden slowing of the forward motion of the vehicle.”
`
`(Ex. 1005, Hetrick at 1:3-7.)
`
`17. My understanding is that the ’093 Patent’s earliest possible priority
`
`claim is December 12, 1995. As explained more fully below, before December 12,
`
`1995, airbags were well-known, used in the front and side of vehicles, and used in
`
`varying sizes, e.g., for one passenger or multiple passengers in the form of a
`
`Page 12 of 151
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`
`Patent No.: 9,043,093
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: BTI0135IPR1
`
`
`
`curtain. Also before December 12, 1995, various inflator modules were known
`
`and used. Some inflator modules were surrounded by the airbag, others were
`
`placed adjacent an airbag opening, and others were located remote from the airbag
`
`and connected by a long conduit, e.g., a tube or hose-like structure.
`
`A. Airbags
`
`18. More specifically, before December 12, 1995, it was well-known to
`
`design an airbag to protect one or multiple passengers, and to use airbags in the
`
`front and/or side of a vehicle. For example, U.S. Patent No. 3,642,303 to Irish
`
`(“Irish”; a true and accurate copy attached as Ex. 1006), which issued on Feb. 15,
`
`1972, illustrates an airbag used in the front of the vehicle. Specifically, Irish
`
`discloses an occupant protection system including a plurality of airbags for
`
`protecting an occupant’s torso, head and legs. (Ex. 1006, Irish at Abstract.) Figure
`
`1, reproduced below, shows inflatable bags 20 (torso bag), 21 (knee bag), and 22
`
`(head bag). (Id. at 1:67-2:7; see also Fig. 1.)
`
`Page 13 of 151
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`
`Patent No.: 9,043,093
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: BTI0135IPR1
`
`
`
`Ex. 1006, Irish at Fig. 1
`
`
`
`19.
`
`In another example, U.S. Patent No. 4,173,356 to Ross (“Ross”; a true
`
`and accurate copy attached as Ex. 1007), which issued Nov. 6, 1979, discloses a
`
`front steering wheel airbag protecting a driver of a vehicle. Specifically, Ross
`
`discloses:
`
`With reference to FIG. 1, there is shown the front seat 1, the steering
`
`wheel 2, and the dashboard 3 of an automobile. There is further
`
`illustrated a first embodiment of the novel inflatable apparatus, or
`
`steering wheel bag 4, which
`
`is
`
`shown
`
`fully
`
`inflated
`
`accommodating and protecting the driver 5.
`
`(Ex. 1007, Ross at 3:9-14, emphasis added.)
`
`Page 14 of 151
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`
`Patent No.: 9,043,093
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: BTI0135IPR1
`
`
`
`Ex. 1007, Ross at Fig. 1 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`20.
`
`It was also known that a single airbag could be designed to protect
`
`one or multiple passengers. Irish and Ross show front airbags for protecting a
`
`single passenger. In another example, U.S. Patent No. 5,609,363 to Finelli
`
`(“Finelli”; a true and accurate copy attached as Ex. 1008), which was filed Nov.
`
`17, 1995 and issued Mar. 11, 1997, discloses a single airbag that spans across two
`
`passengers in the front seat. In particular, Finelli discloses:
`
`The air bag 40 is a closed receptacle for the gaseous medium which
`
`inflates the air bag, except for the opening 48 in the neck 44 through
`
`which the inflating medium enters the air bag. The air bag, when
`
`inflated, is generally kidney-shaped, or L-shaped, as best seen in FIG.
`
`3. The main sac portion 42 of the air bag 40 is directly in front of
`
`the right front occupant R of the front seat of the vehicle and the
`
`lateral extension 52 is directly in front of the center occupant C.
`
`Page 15 of 151
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`
`Patent No.: 9,043,093
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: BTI0135IPR1
`
`
`
`The main sac portion 42 and the lateral extension 52 provide a
`
`single broad cushion to protect both occupants R and C.
`
`(Ex. 1008, Finelli at 2:35-45, emphasis added.)
`
`Ex. 1008, Finelli at Fig. 3 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`21. Ross also discloses an airbag protecting two front seat passengers.
`
`For instance, Ross discloses:
`
`FIG. 1 also depicts a second embodiment of the novel inflatable
`
`apparatus, or, which is depicted in a fully inflated condition
`
`simultaneously accommodating and protecting a passenger 7
`
`occupying the middle of the front seat 1, and a passenger 8
`
`occupying a portion of the front seat 1 adjacent the side window of
`
`the automobile.
`
`Page 16 of 151
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`
`Patent No.: 9,043,093
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: BTI0135IPR1
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1007, Ross at 3:14-20, emphasis added.)
`
`Ex. 1007, Ross at Fig. 1 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`22.
`
`It was also well-known to use airbags in the side of a vehicle for
`
`protection against lateral impacts. For example, U.S. Patent No. 3,897,961 to
`
`Leising (“Leising”; a true and accurate copy attached as Ex. 1009), which issued
`
`on Aug. 5, 1975, shows a side passenger airbag sized for one person. Specifically,
`
`Leising discloses a side-curtain airbag (designated by numeral 41 in the patent)
`
`that is “conveniently and aesthetically stowed in the vehicular roof structure” and
`
`deploys from the vehicle's roof rail (3) to prevent an occupant from being ejected
`
`through the vehicle's door or side window during an accident. (Ex. 1009, Leising at
`
`1:33-38; 3:38-42; 5:36-41 and Fig. 3.) Figure 3 of Leising, reproduced below,
`
`illustrates this embodiment.
`
`Page 17 of 151
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`
`Patent No.: 9,043,093
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: BTI0135IPR1
`
`
`
`Ex. 1009, Leising at Fig. 3 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`23.
`
`In another example, U.S. Patent No. 5,439,247 to Kolb (“Kolb”; a true
`
`and accurate copy attached as Ex. 1010), which issued on August 8, 1995,
`
`discloses an inflatable airbag for protecting an occupant from lateral impacts.
`
`Specifically, Kolb discloses:
`
`[A]n inflated gas bag 10 as part of a vehicular restraining system
`
`which is secured to a side door 12 or in the roof area of the vehicle
`
`and serves in particular to protect the occupant against side impact.
`
`(Ex. 1010, Kolb at 1:42-45 and Fig. 1, emphasis added.)
`
`24. Figure 1 of Kolb, reproduced below, shows such an inflatable side
`
`airbag. (Id. at 1:42-48 and Fig. 1.)
`
`Page 18 of 151
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`
`Patent No.: 9,043,093
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: BTI0135IPR1
`
`
`
`Ex. 1010, Kolb at Fig. 1 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`25.
`
`In yet another example, U.S. Patent No. 5,588,672 to Karlow
`
`(“Karlow”; a true and accurate copy attached as Ex. 1011), which was filed on Oct.
`
`20, 1995 and issued Dec. 31, 1996, discloses “a side impact head restraint with
`
`inflatable deployment in which an inflatable member has a movable mounting
`
`point and is used to deploy a fabric panel during a side impact collision for head
`
`protection.” (Ex. 1011, Karlow at 2:15-19.) Karlow further discloses:
`
`[T]he inflatable member comprises a plurality of inflatable fingers 42
`
`and cloth manifold 44. The plurality of fingers 42 are configured to
`
`extend parallel to each other, vertically downward from the cloth
`
`manifold 44 and upper side rail 16 into the window area 22 during
`
`a side impact collision. The plurality of fingers 42 can be
`
`Page 19 of 151
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`
`Patent No.: 9,043,093
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: BTI0135IPR1
`
`
`
`individual inflatable members or, more 60 likely, sewn subsections
`
`of an inflatable cushion. Elongation of the manifold 44, as well as
`
`other factors mentioned above, act to absorb head impact energy.
`
`(Id. at 4:53-62, emphasis added.)
`
`Ex. 1011, Karlow at Fig. 5 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`26.
`
`In another example, U.S. Patent No. 5,470,103 to Vaillancourt
`
`(“Vaillancourt”; a true and accurate copy attached as Ex. 1012), which issued Nov.
`
`28, 1995, discloses a single, multi-passenger airbag extending (i) transverse of the
`
`vehicle along a front side of the first row of seats, (ii) along the outer sides of both
`
`driver and front passenger seats and (iii) along an intermediate section between
`
`driver and front passenger. In particular, Vaillancourt discloses:
`
`Page 20 of 151
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`
`Patent No.: 9,043,093
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: BTI0135IPR1
`
`
`
`A motor vehicle is provided with an air bag system having a singular
`
`air bag that deploys downward from the ceiling to cushion the front
`
`and both sides of both the driver and a front seat passenger from over
`
`their head and to at least their shoulders to prevent their impacting
`
`with upper interior portions of the vehicle and with each other in a
`
`collision. The air bag includes an elongated front section that
`
`extends transverse of the vehicle along the front of the seats,
`
`elongated side sections that extend rearwardly from the front
`
`section along the outer side of the respective seats, and an
`
`elongated intermediate section that extends rearwardly from the
`
`front section between the seats.
`
`(Ex. 1012, Vaillancourt at Abstract, emphasis added.)
`
`Ex. 1012, Vaillancourt at Fig. 6 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 151
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`
`Patent No.: 9,043,093
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: BTI0135IPR1
`
`
`
`27. Alternatively, larger airbags extending across front and back seats
`
`were known before December 12, 1995. For example, JP Publication No. 51-
`
`45366 to Kobori (“Kobori”; a true and accurate copy attached as Ex. 1013; see also
`
`Ex. 1014, a true and accurate certified English translation), which published Dec.
`
`3, 1976, shows a single airbag that extends across a front seat and an adjacent
`
`backseat. Specifically, Kobori discloses:
`
`An airbag for vehicles that is formed of an expandable bag having at
`
`the least vent holes with check valves in its bottom surface, which is
`
`folded and stored in the vehicle ceiling above the occupant seats,
`
`that covers the front and rear sides, left and right sides, and the
`
`upper side of the occupants at the time of deployment, and a drive
`
`device which is activated and expands the above-mentioned folded
`
`bag in the downward direction when an impact that exceeds a certain
`
`value is applied to the vehicle . . .
`
`(Ex. 1014, Kobori at p. 3, emphasis added.)
`
`Ex. 1014, Kobori at Fig. 2 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 151
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`
`Patent No.: 9,043,093
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: BTI0135IPR1
`
`
`
`28. The benefits and tradeoffs of these various airbags were well-known
`
`by persons of ordinary skill in the art before December 12, 1995. For example,
`
`using two individual airbags might be more expensive but would allow use of
`
`smaller inflators. On the other hand, a single, larger airbag for protection of two
`
`seats might be less expensive but may require a larger inflator. Packaging space,
`
`the ability to sense a crash in sufficient amount of time to deploy a very large or
`
`small airbag, the size and type of inflator, the objectives for the safety device, such
`
`as crash injury reduction, or ejection mitigation, and consideration for occupant out
`
`of position and interaction with a deploying airbag, are all factors, among others,
`
`that would influence known design options for the overall system.
`
`29.
`
`In some cases, while the overall objective may be understood and
`
`known, such as whether to employ a side curtain, or extend it toward the rear
`
`occupant, a particular component may not have been suitable due to packaging
`
`constraints, cost, or other considerations. In essence, the development of a better
`
`tool to achieve a known objective.
`
`B.
`
`Inflators
`
`