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,
`
`Vv.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, JEREMY M. PLENZLER,and
`JAMESA. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TARTAL,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 CFR. § 42.108
`
`
`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,
`
`Vv.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, JEREMY M. PLENZLER,and
`JAMESA. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TARTAL,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 CFR. § 42.108
`
`
`
`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 SignalIP Inc., filed a Preliminary Response.
`
`Paper6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),
`
`which providesthat an inter partes review maynotbeinstituted “unless. . .
`
`the information presented in the petition .
`
`.
`
`. showsthat there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`
`claims challenged in the petition.”
`
`Uponconsideration 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
`
`A.
`
`The ’375 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The °375 patentis titled “Method ofInhibiting 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
`
`andthatit is desirable to inhibit the airbags from deployingif the front
`
`passengerseat 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 ofseat passenger and determining the seating position of the
`
`passengerto allow or inhibit airbag deployment. Jd. 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.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`FIG -7
`
`Figure 7 depicts the seat having 12 sensors arranged as follows: 1) a left pair
`
`of sensors 1 and 2, 2) aright 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 arear 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 aright group. Jd. at 4:19-24.
`
`An algorithm calculates a set of decision measures 40 based upon the
`
`output of the sensors. Jd. at 3: 48-49; Fig. 4. The first decision measures
`
`are a total force, which is the sum ofthe sensor output values, and a fuzzy
`
`contribution for the total force. Jd. at 3:49-67. The second decision
`
`measuresare a load rating for each sensor,a total load rating, and a fuzzy
`
`contribution for the total load rating. Jd. at 4:1-17. The load rating is a
`
`measure of whetherthe sensor is detecting some load, andthe total load
`
`rating is the sum ofthe load ratings for each sensor. Ex. 1001 at 4:24, 9-
`
`11. The third decision measuresare a force and fuzzy contribution for each
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`pair of sensors and for the center group. Jd. at 4:30-47.
`
`The algorithm also checks for force concentration. Jd. 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 summingthe load ratings of the sensors in each
`group and comparingto the total load rating. If the rating sum
`of any groupis equalto the total rating, a flag is set for that group
`(all right, all front etc.).
`
`Id. at 4:18—24.
`
`Based upontheset of decision measures, a decision algorithm determines
`
`whetherairbag deployment should be allowedor inhibited. Jd. at 4:64-66.
`
`The decision algorithm is depicted in Figure 8, and Figure 8 is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`Hi
`
`TOTAL LOAD RATING
`
`| . FRONTFORCE&ALLFRONT FLAG
`
`Figure 8 depicts a flow chart of the deployment decision algorithm.
`
`FIG -8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`Wheneveran inhibit or allow decision is made, that decision is controlling
`
`and all other conditions lower on the chart are bypassed. Jd. at 5:9-11.
`
`First, the decision algorithm determinesif rails of an infant seat are
`
`detected and whetherthe infant seat is forward or rear facing. Id. at 4:65-
`
`5:9. Deploymentis allowed for a forward facing seat and inhibited for a rear
`
`facing scat. /d. 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
`deploymentis inhibited. Otherwise, if the localized force for a
`sensor group is abovea threshold andthe flag corresponding to
`that group is set <70>, deploymentis allowed. If not, the next
`step is to comparethetotal 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 aboveits 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 deploymentis inhibited.
`
`Id. at 5:12-27.
`
`B.
`
`Challenged Claim
`
`Claim 11 of the ?375 patent is independentandrecites:
`
`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 dcploymcnt
`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 aboveatotal
`threshold force;
`
`
`
`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
`predefinedtotal load threshold, whereby deploymentis 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.
`
`C.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`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-05162in 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 wasdenied in Toyota Motor Corporation v. SignalIP,
`
`Inc., {PR2016-00291 (Paper 13, June 10, 2016).
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`D.—Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner contends that claim 11 is unpatentable as obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over: (1) Schousek! and Tokuyama,” (2) Tokuyama and
`Mazur,? and (3) Schousek, Zeidler,* and Mano.° Pet. 5-6.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Petitioner acknowledgesthat the ’375 patent expired on DecemberI,
`
`2015. See Pet. 13. “[T]he Board’s review ofthe 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 ofordinary skill in the art in question
`
`at the time of the invention. “In determining the meaning of the disputed
`
`claimlimitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence ofrecord,
`
`examining the claim languageitself, the written description, and the
`
`prosecutionhistory, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic
`
`Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips,
`
`'U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327, issued December12, 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”).
`4U.S. Patent No. 5,612,876, issued March 18, 1997 (Ex. 1013, “Zeidler’”).
`> M. Morris Mano, Digital Logic and Computer Design, ©1979 Prentice
`Hall, Inc. (Ex. 1014, “Mano”)
`
`
`
`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
`
`(Iced. 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 exampleis 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....” Ud. at 4:24.)
`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 J 49.)
`
`Pet. 15.
`
`Patent Ownerdoes not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction,stating “a
`
`load rating, according to the ’375 [p]atent is a measure of whether a given
`
`sensoris detecting some load.” Prelim. Resp. 3, 16 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:1-4).
`
`—
`
`Weagree with the parties that a “load rating” is a measure of whether a
`
`given sensoris 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.
`
`Rouhanafor support. Jd. at 35-42; see also Ex. 1009.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`Claim 11 requires, among otherthings, assigning a load rating to each
`
`sensor based on its measured force, and then “summingthe assigned load
`
`ratings forall the sensors to derive a total load rating” (the “summing
`
`limitation”). Airbag deploymentis allowedif the total load rating is above a
`
`predefinedtotal load threshold. Petitioner relies only on Tokuyamaas
`
`disclosing the summinglimitation. See Pet. 25 (“Schousek disclosesall 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
`
`Tokuyamadiscloses this feature of the claim.
`
`Tokuyamadescribes a “seat load detection apparatus, used in a seat of
`
`an automobile such as a private vehicle, for detecting the presence or
`
`absenceofsitting by a passenger.” Ex. 1004 41.
`
`Figure 1 of Tokuyamais reproduced below.
`
`[FIG.1]
`
`Tokuyama Figure 1 shows automobile seat 1 with load detection body A
`
`disposed between cushion material 4 and surface sheet 5. Ex. 1004 4 11.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`Load detection body A includesnine load detection units (S1 to S9)
`disposed on the uppersurfaceside ot seat unit 2 and three load detection
`
`units (S10 to $12) disposed near the front edge of seat unit 2. Jd. at
`
`qJ 13-14. In determining whether to deploy the airbag, Tokuyamauses a
`
`microprocessor “by way of an ON-OFF judgmentas to whether a currentis
`
`flowing in each load detection unit $1 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 J 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 SI to S9 are ON,itis
`
`decidedthat it is a load due to something other than a person.” Jd. More
`
`particularly,if the set of load decision units S2, $5, and S8, located in a
`
`vertical row in the middle ofthe seat, are all OFF, or the set of load decision
`
`units S4, S5, and S6, located in a horizontal row in the middle ofthe seat,
`
`are all OFF,thenit is decided that it is a load due to something other than a
`
`person. Jd. Additional determinations concerning the load on the seat are
`madeby evaluating the total value ofthe current flowing between the
`conductors, which correspondsto load pressure. Jd., see also id. at
`
`qq 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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`some load and “assign[s] a load rating to each sensor based on
`its measured force” as required bythe final limitations of claim
`11.
`
`Pet. 30.
`
`Patent Owner has not disputed, and we assumefor purposes ofthis
`
`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 makesa passenger/no passengerclassification 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
`comparesthis “total load rating” to a “total load threshold” of 4
`as part of its classification algorithm. (/d.; see also Ex. 1009,
`{Andrews Dec.] at { 76.)
`
`Pet. 30-31.
`
`Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, there is no express disclosure in
`
`Tokuyamathatit is “adding up” the numberof sensors that are ON. Weare
`
`not persuadedthat Petitioner has carried its burden by merely arguing that
`
`“fijn other words, Tokuyama’s apparatus determinesa ‘total load rating’ by
`
`adding up the numberof 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 Tokuyamais supported only
`
`by a limited explanation in the Declaration of Dr. Rouhana, whichstates:
`
`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
`
`il
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`three of the nine load detection units $1 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 thoughtof as assigning a value of
`“1” to cach sensor) or OFF (which can be thoughtofas 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.” ([/d.]) In other words,
`Tokuyama’s apparatus determinesa “total load rating” by adding
`up the numberofsensors that are ON, and comparesthis “total
`load rating” to a “total
`load threshold” of 4 as part of its
`classification algorithm.
`
`Ex. 1009,
`
`76.
`
`Thus, from the evidencerelied on by Petitioner, Tokuyama
`
`determines whethera certain numberofsensors is on, but Tokuyama
`
`provides no indication thatit is “adding up” sensor ON information. Dr.
`
`Rouhana’s testimonyis not persuasive becauseit is conclusory and provides
`
`no explanation of why oneofordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention would have understand Tokuyamato be applying a binary system
`
`based on numerical values for ON and OFF, muchless 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 whichof those
`
`units are ON or OFF. Petitioner does not explain how such location
`
`information would be reflected were Tokuyamaproperly viewedas a simple
`
`binary system. Petitioner also neglects to address how Tokuyama’s
`exclusionofthree of the twelve sensors from its determination of whether
`
`four or more ofthe load detection units are ON relates to the requirement of
`
`claim 11 of summing the assigned load ratings for a// the sensors.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`Petitioner’s contentions are not supported by sufficient evidence to suggest
`
`(hal any set of load rating values 1s summed,or needs to be summed,for
`
`Tokuyamato operate, even if Petitioner contends that conceptuallyit
`
`“amounts to” adding valucs up.
`
`“Any judgment on obviousnessis in a sense necessarily a
`
`reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so longasit 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 doesnot 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 “summingthe assigned load ratings,” as claimed,
`
`and instead suggests that by considering the disclosure of the ’375 patent,
`
`Tokuyamacan be thought of as accomplishing the same task. There is no
`
`persuasive evidence that such reasoningis limited to the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. Moreover, reasoning that
`the disclosure of Tokuyama “aiounts to” whatis disclosed in the ’375
`
`patent neccasarily includes kuuwledye zleaned from the °375 patent. Asa
`
`result, we are not persuadedthat Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated
`
`Tokuyamadiscloses “summing the assigned load ratings for all the sensors
`
`to derive a total load rating,” as required by claim 11. Accordingly, we
`
`concludethat Petitioner has not presented sufficient information to establish
`
`a seasuuuble likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claim
`
`11 of the 375 patent as obvious over Schousek and Tokuyama.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`C._Asserted Obviousness Over Tokuyama and Mazur
`
`Petitioner contends claim 11 of the *375 patent would have been
`
`obvious over Tokuyama and Mazur. Pet. 42-54. With regard to the
`
`summinglimitation, Petitioner again relies only on Tokuyama. Id. at 53.
`
`For the same reasonsdiscussed above with respect to the Schousek and
`
`Tokuyama combination, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has sufficiently
`
`demonstrated ‘I'okuyamadiscloses “summingthe assignedloadratings for
`
`all the sensors to derive a total load rating,” as required by claim 11.
`
`Accordingly, we concludethat 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
`
`summinglimitation, Petitioner relies only on Zeidler and Mano. Jd. at 59.
`
`Our discussion again focuses on the summing limitation because Petitioner
`
`has not adequately shownthat Zeidler and Manodisclose this feature of the
`
`claim.
`
`Zeidler is a “device for detecting seat occupancy in a motorvehicle,
`
`espccially 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. Jd. In Zeidler a simple algorithm is used to determine whether
`
`to deploy the airbag based on seat occupancylogic signals “V” from the
`
`front sensing region and “H”from the rear sensing region having“the
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`occupancystatus ‘1’ for an occupied sensing region and ‘0’ for an
`
`unuccupied sensing région.” Jd. at 3:34—4:5. Ifthe rear sensing regionis
`
`occupied (in which case the “H”signalis “1””), then the airbag is deployed.
`
`Id. If the rear sensing region is not occupied (in which case the “H”signalis
`
`“Q”), then the airbag is inhibited. /d.; see also Pet. 24—25.
`
`Manoappearsto be a text booktitled 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 “predeterminedtotal load
`threshold,” the “maximum value” wouldbe1, 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 usedat the time of the invention in Zeidler’s device or
`
`simple algorithm. Nor does Petitioner explain any sufficient rationale for
`
`whyoneofordinary skill in the art would have applied the binary logic of
`
`Manoto 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.
`
`Weagree 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 whetheror not airbag deployment should be
`
`allowed.” Prelim. Resp. 21. As Patent Ownernotes, “Zeidler is clear that
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`whetheror not airbag deploymentis permitted depends on the output values
`
`ofindividual seat sensing regions, not their sum.” Jd. Petitioner’s argument
`
`that “a boolean function combining a logic OR operation (x + y), i.e., a
`
`Boolean sum,and a logic AND operation (x-y), i.e., a Boolean 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 summinglimitation of the °375 patent.
`Wefurther agree with Patent Ownerthat 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” becauseit inhibits airbag
`
`deployment both whenonly the front sensing region is occupicd, thatis,
`
`whenthe value of logic signal V is | and H is 0, as well as when nosensing
`
`region is occupied (in which case both V and H are 0). See Prelim. Resp.
`
`22. Thus, Zeidler inhibits airbag deployment under certain circumstances
`
`whenthe sum of the V and H signals is 0 or 1. Contrary to its assertion,
`
`Petitioner has not persuasively shownthat 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 reasonablelikelihood of prevailing in showing the
`
`unpatentability of claim 11 of the °375 patent as obvious over Schousek,
`
`Zeidler, and Mano.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`fil. CONCLUSION
`
`Wedeterminethat Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on any of the asserted groundsof unpatentability.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing,it is hereby:
`
`ORDEREDthatinstitution of inter partes review is denied as to the
`
`challenged claim of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375.
`
`17
`
`
`
`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
`
`
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
