Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 7
`Entered: April 4, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`KEY SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-01872
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,and
`SCOTT C. MOORE,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 7
`Entered: April 4, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`KEY SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-01872
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,and
`SCOTT C. MOORE,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01872
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Key Safety Systems,Inc. (“Petitioner’’) filed a Petition for inter partes
`
`review of claims 1-44 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No.9,043,093 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’093 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Petitioner
`
`relies on the Declaration of Mr. Craig White (Ex. 1002) to support its
`
`positions. American Vehicular Sciences, LLC (“Patent Owner’’)filed a
`
`Preliminary Response (Paper6, “Prelim. Resp.”), along with a Declaration
`
`of Michael Nranian P.E. (Ex. 2005) in support ofits positions.
`
`Wehaveauthority to determine whetherto institute inter partes
`
`review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for
`
`instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which
`
`provides that an inter partes review may notbeinstituted “unless. .
`
`. there is
`
`a reasonablelikelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`
`least 1 of the claims challengedin the petition.”
`
`Uponconsideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and
`
`for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to
`
`any of the challenged claims of the °093 patent. Accordingly, we do not
`
`institute inter partes review.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`The parties indicate that the °093 patent is the subject of the following
`
`ongoing district court proceedings: Am. Vehicular Scis. LLC v. Hyundai
`
`Motor Co., No. 5:16-cv-11529-JEL-APP (E.D. Mich.); Am. Vehicular Scis.
`
`LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., No. 5:16-cv-11530-JEL-APP (E.D. Mich.); Am.
`
`Vehicular Scis., LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 5:16-cv-11531-JEL-APP
`
`(E.D. Mich.); and Am. Vehicular Scis., LLC v. Am. Honda MotorCo.,
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01872
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`No. 5:16-cv-11532-JEL-APP (E.D. Mich.). Pet. vi; Paper 4, 2. The 7093
`
`patent also has been challenged in IPR2016-00364, IPR2016-01790, and
`
`IPR2016-01794. See Pet. vi; Paper 4,2.
`
`B. The ’093 Patent
`
`The 093 patentis titled “Single Side Curtain Airbag for Vehicles,”
`
`and was filed as U.S. application No. 11/930,330 on October 31, 2007.
`
`Ex. 1001, at [21], [22], [54]. The °093 patent claimspriority, via a chain of
`
`continuation-in-part and divisional applications, to U.S. application —
`
`No. 08/571,247, filed on December 12, 1995. Id. at [60].
`
`The ’093 patent relates to an airbag system for a vehicle, in which
`“the airbag for the front and rear seats are combined,i.e., the airbag deploys
`along substantially the entire side of the vehicle alongside both the front seat
`
`and the rear seat.” Jd. at 65:29-32. According to the ’093 patent, this
`
`arrangement“results in significantly greater protection in side impacts when
`
`the windowsare broken.” Jd. at 65:32—34. Further, the airbag system of
`
`the ’093 patentutilizes a single gas-providing system with only one inflator
`
`to inflate the airbag. Jd. at 187:4-6. The airbag also includesa plurality of
`
`compartments in flow communication with each other. See, e.g., id. at
`
`169:27-33. As described in the ’093 patent, the compartments allow the
`
`airbag to be formedof the desired shape, while minimizing stress
`
`concentrations, as well as the weight of the airbag. Jd. at 81:14—-19.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Ofthe challenged claims, claims 1, 22, 26, 29, 36-39, and 41-43 are
`
`independent. Claims 2-21 and 33-35 depend,directly or indirectly, from
`
`claim 1; claims 23-25 depend from claim 22; claims 27 and 28 depend from
`
`claim 26; claims 30-32 depend from claim 29; claim 40 depends from
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01872
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`claim 39; and claim 44 depends from claim 43. Claim 1 of the ’093 patent,
`
`reproduced below,is illustrative of the challenged claims.
`
`the airbag system
`
`1. An airbag system of a vehicle,
`comprising:
`two seating
`least
`a single airbag extending across at
`positions of a passenger compartment of a vehicle, the single
`airbag arranged to deploy into the passenger compartment along
`a lateral side of the vehicle and adjacent each ofthe at least two
`seating positions;
`a cover interposed between the single airbag and the
`passenger compartment
`to cover the single airbag prior to
`deployment;
`a single gas-providing system that has only oneinflator
`that provides gas to inflate the single airbag and which is
`arranged apart from the single airbag; and
`a conduit leading from the single gas-providing system to
`provide gas to inflate the single airbag,
`the conduit being
`arranged to deliver the gas from the single gas-providing
`system into the single airbag;
`the at
`least
`two seating positions comprising a first
`seating position in a first seat row of seats of the vehicle and a
`second seating position in a second seat row of seats of the
`vehicle longitudinally displaced from thefirst seat row of seats,
`along the lateral side of the vehicle;
`wherein the single airbag has a plurality of compartments
`for receiving the gas, and wherein the plurality of compartments
`are in flow communication with each other.
`
`Ex. 1001, 186:61—-187:18.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01872
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`D. The Applied References and Evidence
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references in the asserted grounds.
`
`Pet. 1-3.
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,439,247 (“Kolb”) 8, 1995|Ex. 1010Aug.
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,588,672 (“Karlow”)|Dec. 31, 1996!|Ex. 1011
`JP Pub. No. 51-45366 (‘“Kobori”)
`Dec. 3, 1976
`x. 1013?
`E
`
`US. Patent No. 4,966,388 (“Warner”) Oct. 30,1990|Ex. 1026
`
`
`U.S.Patent No. 4,963,412 Oct. 16.1990|Ex. 1027.
`Kokeguchi
`U.S. Patent No. 3,944,769 (“Wagner”)|Mar. 16,1976|Ex. 1028
`U.S. Patent No. 5,290,060 (“Smith”)
`Mar.
`1, 1994
`Ex. 1029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,618,057 (“Johnson”
`Apr. 8, 1997°
`x. 1030
`E
`USS. Patent No. 5,400,487 (“Gioutsos”)|Mar. 28,1995|Ex. 1031
`
`
`US. Patent No. 5,423,571 (“Hawthorn”)|June 13, 1995 x. 1032
`U.S. Patent No.5,269,561 (“Davis”)
`Dec. 14, 1993
`x. 1033
` USS. Patent No. 4,021,058 (“Suzuki”)
`May 3, 1977
`Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E E
`
`1 Petitioner asserts that Karlow is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(c). Pet. 3.
`Karlow wasfiled on October 20, 1995 (Ex. 1011, at [22]), which is before
`December12, 1995, the earliest claimed priority date for the claims of
`the ’093 patent (see Ex. 1001, at [60], 1:7—21).
`2 Citations throughoutareto the certified translation of Kobori (Ex. 1014).
`3 Petitioner asserts that Johnsonis prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 2.
`Johnson was filed on September 15, 1995 (Ex. 1030, at [22]), which is
`before December 12, 1995, the earliest claimed priority date for the claims
`of the ’093 patent (see Ex. 1001, at [60], 1:7—21).
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01872
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner sets forth its challenges to claims 1-44 as follows. Pet. 3-4,
`
`17-81.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6 3
`
`|2
`
`
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`
`
`
`References Basis|Claims Challenged
`Warner and Kobori
`§ 103
`1, 10, 12, 17-20, 26,
`27, 33, 38-40, 42-44
`5, 7, 34, 35
`|6
`,8
`|9
`11, 22, 24, 25, 28
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Warner, Kobori, and Kokeguchi
`Warner, Kobori, and Wagner
`Warner, Kobori, and Smith
`Warner, Kobori, and Johnson
`Warner, Kobori, and Gioutsos
`Warner, Kobori, Johnson, and
`Hawthorn
`Warner, Kobori, and Davis
`Warner, Kobori, and Kolb
`Warner, Kobori, and Karlow
`Warner, Kobori, Davis, and Suzuki
`
`Il. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`Petitioner indicates that the ’093 patent will expire in July 2017,
`
`before a final written decision would issue in this proceeding. Pet. 16.
`
`Thus, according to Petitioner, the Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) standard of claim construction should
`
`be applied to the claims in this proceeding. Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not
`
`address the expiration of the patent, or the claim construction standard to be
`
`applied, but proposes construction for several terms under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard. See Prelim. Resp. 14—19; see also
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (providing that claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`
`given their broadest reasonable interpretation in an inter partes review).
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01872
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Regarding construction of the claims, Petitioner asserts that no terms
`
`require construction for purposes of this proceeding, and also that
`
`“application of either BRI or a district-court type claim construction will not
`
`affect any of the proposed grounds of unpatentability.” Pet. 16-17. Patent
`
`Ownerproposes constructions for four claim terms: (1) “single airbag”;
`
`(2) “a single airbag extending acrossat least two seating positions of a
`
`passenger compartmentofa vehicle .
`
`.
`
`. the at least two seating positions
`
`comprising a first seating position in a first seat row of seats of the vehicle
`
`and a secondseating position in a secondseat row ofseats of the vehicle
`
`longitudinally displaced from the first seat row of seats”; (3) “the single
`
`airbag arranged to deploy into the passenger compartmentalonga lateral
`
`side of the vehicle and adjacent each ofthe at least two seating positions”
`
`and (4) “a plurality of compartments.” Prelim. Resp. 14-19.
`
`Uponreview ofthe parties’ contentions and supporting evidence, we
`
`determine noissue in this Decision requires express construction of any
`claim term. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355,
`1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent
`999
`necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Accordingly, for
`
`purposesof this Decision, we do not provide any express claim construction.
`
`B. Principles ofLaw
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)if the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented andthe prior art are such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obviousat the time the
`
`invention was madeto a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01872
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`(2007). The question of obviousnessis resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and contentofthe priorart;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter andthepriorart;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`
`An obviousnessanalysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed
`
`to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take
`
`account of the inferences and creative steps that a person ofordinary skill in
`
`the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; accord In re Translogic
`
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Further, an invention
`
`“composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, knownin the
`
`priorart.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Rather, “there must be somearticulated
`
`reasoning with somerational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`
`obviousness.” Jd. (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`
`In an inter partes review,Petitioner cannotsatisfy its burden of
`
`proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements,” but “must
`
`instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record” to support
`
`an obviousness determination. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d
`
`1364, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The “factual inquiry” into the reasons for
`“combin[ing] references must be thorough and searching, and the need for
`
`specificity pervades.” In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1381-82 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016) (internal quotations and citations omitted). A determination of
`
`obviousness cannot be reached wherethe record lacks “explanation as to
`
`howor whythe references would be combined to produce the claimed
`
`invention.” Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01872
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`2016); see Nuvasive, 842 F.3d at 1382-85; Magnum Oil, 829 F.3d at 1380—
`
`81.
`
`Weanalyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`
`these principles.
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness in View of, At Least in Part, Warner and
`Kobori
`
`Asset forth above, Petitioner asserts that the claims of the ’093 patent
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obviousin view of various
`
`combinations, each of which primarily includes Warner and Kobori. See
`
`Pet. 3-4, 17-81. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and supporting
`
`evidence, and given the evidence on this record, and for the reasons
`
`explained below, we determine that the information presented does not show
`
`a reasonablelikelihood that Petitioner would prevail on these asserted
`
`grounds.
`
`1. Summary of Warner
`
`Warnerrelates to an “inflatable protective system [that] provides
`
`cushioning and containmentof an occupantof a vehicle from side impact of
`
`the vehicle.” Ex. 1026, at [57]. According to Warner, the restraint system
`
`thereof“is located within the side panel of an automotive vehicle.” Id. at
`
`2:35-37.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01872
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Figures 2 and 3 of Warnerare reproduced below.
`
`FIG. 3
`
`
`
`
` 7aa
`
`
`
`ang
`
`TASYia
`ALs ic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figures 2 and 3 show simplified sectional views through a door panel of a
`
`vehicle, showing the airbag system of Warnerprior to deployment and in an
`
`inflated condition, respectively. Jd. at 4:51—54.
`
`Inflatable bag 27 of the restraint system of Warneris folded, and
`
`mounted and stored within door panel 20 (see Fig. 1) below window 22. Id.
`
`at 5:52-53. Inflator 30 also is mounted within door panel 20, andis in flow
`
`communication with bag 27. Id. at 5:55-57. Further, “cushioning panel 50
`
`of foamed polymeric material is positioned on the inboard side of the door
`
`panel 20.” Jd. at 8:5~7. Wheninflated, airbag 27 “forms a shock absorbing
`
`cushion for the head and flank of the torso of the occupant and a cushioning
`
`barrier to restrain the occupant’s head, neck and shoulders from moving
`
`toward or through the window 22 or of engaging the roofpillar 24, window
`
`frame 23 androofrail 25.” Jd. at 5:65—-6:2.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01872
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Asseen in Figure 3, airbag 27 includes two sections 37, 38.
`
`Section 37 inflates first and “expand|[s] substantially instantaneously toward
`
`the interior of the vehicle from the cavity 29.” Jd. at 6:24-27. “As the
`
`inflation of the [air]bag 27 continues, the second section 38 extends from the
`
`upperside ofthe first section 37 and expands upwardly over the window 22
`
`in the door panel 20.” Jd. at 6:27-30. Warner further describes that
`
`Uponcollision and inflation of the air bag 27, the cushioning
`panel 50 is propelled inwardly toward the occupant to make
`initial cushioned contact with the occupant’s torso and to
`initiate lateral movement of the occupant away from the door
`panel 20. Such movementof the occupant will minimize the
`relative speed at which the door panel 20 of the automobile
`makes contact with the occupant during the collision.
`Id. at 8:15—22. According to Warner, “it is important to achieve an almost
`
`instantaneousinflation of the lower section 37 of the air bag 27 prior to the
`
`inflation of the upper section 38”in orderto facilitate “rapid movementof
`
`the cushioning panel 50 toward the occupant such that the cushioning panel
`
`comesinto contact with the occupant before the door panel 20 .
`
`.
`
`. makes
`
`contact with the occupant.” Id. at 8:41-49.
`
`The embodiments described in Warnerlocate the airbag within a door
`
`panel of the vehicle. Warner notes, however, “that the invention is
`
`applicable to a side panel of an automotive vehicle generally and is not
`
`restricted to a door panelor to any particular type of vehicle. For instance,
`
`the invention could be applied to the side panels adjacentto the back seat of
`
`a conventional two door automobile, as well as doors and side panels of
`
`trucks.” Id. at 5:30—36.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01872
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`2. Summary of Kobori
`
`Kobori relates to an “airbag safety device for vehicles.” Ex. 1014,
`
`at [54]. Figure 2 of Kobori is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 2
`
`Figure 2 is a side view of a vehicle with the airbag of Kobori in a deployed
`
`state. Id. at 5.4 Prior to deployment, airbag 3 is folded and stored in the
`
`ceiling. Jd. at 3, Fig. 1. At deployment, the airbag “immediately drops and
`
`expands from the ceiling and covers occupants, 6, in a wrapping fashion as
`
`shown by the dashedlines in Fig. 2.” Jd. at3. As described in Kobori,
`
`“the bottom surface of the .
`
`.
`
`. [air]bag is divided (grouped)in the
`
`longitudinal direction of the vehicle, and the bottom surfaces of the divided
`
`bag are connected to each other with a net.” Jd. at 4.
`
`Whendeployed, “[air]bag 3 has a volumethat occupies almostthe
`
`entire space of the vehicle interior.” Jd. at 3. In this way, airbag 3 “covers
`
`the front and rearsides, left and right sides, and the upperside of the
`
`occupants at the time of deployment.” Jd. at 2. Further, “when the vehicle
`
`receives an impact and [air]bag 3 drops and expands from theceiling and the
`
`* Citations to Exhibit 1014 refer to the original pagination at the bottom
`center of each page.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01872
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`bottom surface of the bag comes in contact with the occupants’ heads and
`
`upperbodies, contact resistance is extremely small because net 13... is
`
`sufficiently flexible.” Jd. at 4.
`
`3. Petitioner’s Asserted Combination of Warner and Kobori
`
`Each of Petitioner’s asserted groundsis premised,at least in part, on
`
`its proposed combination of Warner and Kobori. Petitioner relies on
`
`Warner’s teaching of a “single-passengerairbag for side-impact protection
`
`that is stored and deployed from a vehicle door panel,” that, when deployed
`
`“expands upward to cover the upper portion of the door side panel and
`
`window to protect an occupant’s head, neck and shoulders from impacting
`
`the window andbeing ejected therethrough.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1026, 4:19-—
`
`36, 5:52-57; Ex. 1002 |¥ 56-57). Petitioner relies on Kobori’s teaching of a
`
`“multi-passenger airbag that is ‘folded and stored in the vehicle ceiling’ and
`
`extends across two seating positions in two rowsof a vehicle.” Jd. (citing
`
`Ex. 1014, 3-4; Ex. 1002 FJ 61-62).
`
`Petitioner argues that “Warner disclosesthat its invention ‘is not
`
`restricted to a door panel.’” Jd. at 19 (quoting Ex. 1026, 5:30—33); see id.
`
`at 22. According to Petitioner, a “reasonable inference” from this disclosure
`
`“is that the Warner single-passenger airbag was not confinedto a single
`
`seating position in the vehicle and that it was well-knownan airbag could'be
`
`mounted in a door, ceiling, steering wheel, etc. according to the injury being
`
`mitigated.” /d. at 22 (citing Ex. 1002 9] 125-126). We disagree. Petitioner
`
`quotes Warnerout of context. The complete quote from Warneris as
`
`follows:
`
`the invention is
`that
`should be recognized, however,
`It
`applicable to a side panel of an automotive vehicle generally
`and is not restricted to a door panel or to any particular type of
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01872
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`vehicle. For instance, the invention could be applied to the side
`panels adjacent to the back seat of a conventional two door
`automobile, as well as doors and side panels of trucks.
`Ex. 1026, 5:30-36. Weare not persuaded that Warneris suggesting here
`that its airbag could be mounted anywherein the vehicle, as asserted by
`
`Petitioner, but Warner instead merely is noting that its airbag need not be
`
`mountedin a door, as in the disclosed embodiments, as long as it is mounted
`
`in a side panel of the vehicle.
`
`Petitioner provides several reasons that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art allegedly would have “modif[ied] and/or combine[d] Warner’s
`
`single-passengerairbag with the teachings of Kobori’s multi-passenger
`
`airbag.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 9] 119-126). These include:
`
`(1) “the regulatory and market forces in the early- to mid-1990’s would have
`
`motivated a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to extend Warner’s
`
`single-passenger airbag into a multi-passengerairbag like Kobori,” which
`
`“would have been a predictable and successful variation in view ofthestate
`
`of art of automotive safety restraints as of December 12, 1995”;
`
`(2) “the selection and use of single-passenger or multi-passenger airbagsis a
`
`classic example of a [person ofordinary skill in the art] understanding
`
`tradeoffs between a finite numberofidentified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success for each solution”; and (3) “specific
`
`factors would have motivated a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to use a
`
`multi-passenger airbag over a single-passengerairbag, including:
`
`cost-savings, greater protection for multiple vehicle occupants and
`reliability.” Jd. (citing Ex. 1002 4 119-131); see id. at 17-21.
`Petitioner, however, does not explain with particularity how one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have modified the references, or why one of
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01872
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have combinedthe referencesto arrive at the
`
`claimed invention. See Trivascular, 812 F.3d at 1066. Instead, Petitioner
`
`merely asserts that a person ofordinary skill in the art could “modify[]
`
`Warner’s teaching of a single-passenger airbag to operate as a
`
`multi-passengerairbag (like Kobori),” without any specific, articulated
`
`explanation of what such a modification would look like or how such a
`
`modification would work. Pet. 20; see also id. at 22-24, 28-29, 31 (making
`
`similar assertions). Mr. White’s testimony also does not remedythis
`
`deficiency. See Ex. 1002 9§ 122-126, 129-131.
`
`For the reasons discussed, we are not persuadedthat Petitioner has
`
`shown sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had
`
`reason to combine Warnerand Kobori in the manner proposedby Petitioner
`
`to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`4. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Each ofPetitioner’s asserted groundsrelies on the allegedly obvious
`
`combination of Warner and Kobori discussed above. For the above reasons,
`
`weare not persuaded that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that one
`
`of skill in the art would have had reason to combine these references in the
`
`mannerasserted by Petitioner. Petitioner does not offer any additional
`
`persuasive reasoning or evidence regarding this issue in any of its asserted
`
`grounds based on Warnerand Kobori in combination with additional
`
`references. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`established a reasonable likelihood of success in showing that any of
`
`claims 1-44 would have been obvious over the combinationsof references
`
`asserted by Petitioner.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01872
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`
`conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that
`
`claims 1-44 of the ’093 patent would have been obviousoverthe asserted
`
`prior art. Accordingly, we do notinstitute inter partes review with respect
`
`to any claimsof the ’093 patent.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDEREDthatthe Petition is deniedas to all challenged claims, and
`
`notrial is instituted.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01872
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Frank A. Angileri
`Robert C.J. Tuttle
`LeKeisha M. Suggs
`BROOKS KUSHMANP.C.
`BTI0135IPR1@brookskushman.com
`fangileri@brookskushman.com
`rtuttle@brookskushman.com
`lsuggs@brookskushman.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`17
`
`
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
