Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 35
`Entered: May 19, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENTTRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`UNIFIED PATENTSINC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,and
`SCOTT C. MOORE,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F-R. $ 42.73
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 35
`Entered: May 19, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENTTRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`UNIFIED PATENTSINC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,and
`SCOTT C. MOORE,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F-R. $ 42.73
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Wehavejurisdiction to hear this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 6. This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons discussed herein, we determinethat
`
`Petitioner has shown, by a preponderanceofthe evidence, that claims1, 8,
`
`10, 12, 17-19, 26, 27, and 36 of U.S. Patent No. 9,043,093 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`
`“the ’093 patent”) are unpatentable.
`
`A. Procedural History
`
`Unified Patents Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes
`review ofclaims 1, 8, 10, 12, 17-19, 26, 27, and 36 ofthe °093 patent.
`Paper2 (“Pet.”). Petitioner provided a Declaration of Priyaranjan Prasad,
`
`Ph.D. (Ex. 1005) to support its positions. American Vehicular Sciences,
`
`LLC (‘Patent Owner”)filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8, Paper 7
`
`(redacted version)).
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), on June 27, 2016, weinstituted inter
`
`partes review to determine whetherclaims 1, 8, 10, 12, 17-19, 26, 27, and
`36 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Leising’
`
`and Lau’; and whether claims 1, 10, 17-19, 26, 27, and 36 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Karlow? and Lau. See Paper 13
`
`(“Inst. Dec.”). Subsequentto institution, Patent Ownerfiled a Patent Owner
`
`Response (Paper 22 (“PO Resp.”)), along with a Declaration of Michael
`
`Nranian P.E. (Ex. 2021) to support its positions. Petitioner filed a Reply
`
`(Paper 26 (‘‘Pet. Reply”)) to the Patent Owner Response, along with a
`
`'U.S. Patent No. 3,897,961, issued Aug. 5, 1975 (Ex. 1002).
`2U.S. Patent No. 5,273,309, issued Dec. 28, 1993 (Ex. 1003).
`3U.S. Patent No. 5,588,672, issued Dec. 31, 1996 (Ex. 1004).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Second Declaration of Dr. Prasad (Ex. 1021). An oral hearing was held on
`
`January 23, 2017. A transcript of the hearing is includedin the record.
`
`Paper 34 (“Tr.”). We also have considered Patent Owner’s Observations on
`
`Cross-Examination (Paper 29) and Petitioner’s Response thereto (Paper32).
`
`B. 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 Motor Co.,
`
`No. 5:16-cv-11532-JEL-APP (E.D. Mich.). See Paper 19,1.
`
`C. The ’093 Patent
`
`The ’093 patentis titled “Single Side Curtain Airbag for Vehicles,”
`
`and wasfiled 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 December12, 1995. Jd. 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.” Id.
`
`at 65:29-32.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Figure 56 of the 093 patent is reproduced below.
`
`468
`
`Figure 56, reproduced above, shows an exemplary embodimentof a side
`
`curtain airbag. Jd. at 6:4-8. According to the ’093 patent, the side curtain
`
`arrangement“results in significantly greater protection in side impacts when
`
`the windowsare broken.” Jd. at 65:32-34.
`
`The airbag system of the °093 patent utilizes a single gas-providing
`
`system with only oneinflatorto inflate the airbag.
`
`/d. at 187:4-6. The
`
`airbag includesa plurality of compartments in flow communication with
`
`each other. See, e.g., id. at 169:27—33. An example ofan airbag having
`
`such compartments is shown in Figure 84 of the 093 patent, reproduced
`
`below.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 84, reproduced above, shows exemplary airbag 710 formed of “long
`
`tubular shaped mini-airbags 713”(also referred to in the ’093 patent as
`
`“compartments”). Jd. at 93:21—-26. 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. Id. at
`
`81:14-19.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`
`Ofthe challenged claims, claims 1, 26, and 36 are independent.
`
`Claims 8, 10, 12, and 17—19 depend from claim 1; and claim 27 depends
`
`from claim 26. Claim 1 of the ’093 patent, reproducedbelow,is illustrative
`
`of the challenged claims.
`
`1. An airbag system of a vehicle, the airbag system
`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 of the at least two
`seating positions;
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`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 one inflator
`that provides gas to inflate the single airbag and whichis _
`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 comprisinga 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 the first 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.
`
`Il. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Principles ofLaw
`
`To prevail in its challenges to the patentability of the claims, a
`
`petitioner must establish facts supporting its challenges by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). “In an [inter
`
`partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with
`
`particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” HarmonicInc.v.
`
`Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with
`
`particularity .
`
`.
`
`. the evidence that supports the groundsfor the challenge to
`
`each claim’”)). This burden of persuasion nevershifts to Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378—
`
`79 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d
`
`1316, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burdens of persuasion and
`
`production in inter partes review).
`
`A claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented andthepriorart
`
`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 (2007). The question of obviousnessis resolved on the
`
`basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and
`
`content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject
`
`matter and the priorart; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and
`(4) objective evidence of nonobviousness.* See Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`
`383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`
`An obviousness analysis “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 of ordinary 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
`
`“composedofseveral 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
`
`4 Neither party directs our attention to specific objective evidence of
`nonobviousness.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`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
`
`how or whythe references would be combinedto produce the claimed
`
`invention.” Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed.Cir.
`
`2016); see Nuvasive, 842 F.3d at 1382-85; Magnum Oil, 829 F.3d at 1380—
`
`81. Thus, to prevail Petitioner must explain how the prior art would have
`
`rendered the challenged claim unpatentable.
`
`At this final stage, we determine whether a preponderanceof the
`
`evidence of the record showsthat the challenged claims would have been
`
`obviousin view ofthe asserted prior art. We analyze the asserted grounds of
`
`unpatentability in accordance with those principles.
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have
`
`been a mechanical engineer having the equivalent of a post-graduate
`
`education, such as a master’s degree or equivalent knowledge obtained
`
`through work experience, and several years of experience in the design of
`
`vehicle occupant protection systems.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1005 4 36). Patent
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Ownerdoesnot address the level of ordinary skill in its Patent Owner
`
`Response, but Mr. Nraniantestifies that such a person “would haveat least a
`
`Bachelor’s degree in electrical, electronic, mechanical, or automotive
`
`engineering, andat least three years of experience in the integration of
`
`airbag, safety, and vehicle occupant protection devices in automotive
`
`vehicles, or equivalent knowledge obtained through work experiencein the
`
`relevant field.” Ex. 2021 936. We do not discern a difference between
`
`these formulations as applied to the issues in dispute in this proceeding.
`
`For purposesof this Final Written Decision, and based onthe parties’
`
`proposed formulations and the complete record now before us, we adopt the
`
`following definition of one of ordinary skill in the art: a person havingat
`
`least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical, electronic, mechanical, or automotive
`
`engineering, or equivalent coursework, and having several years of
`
`experience in the design of vehicle occupant protection systemsin
`
`automotive vehicles, or equivalent knowledge obtained through work
`experiencein the relevant field. The level of ordinary skill in the art further
`
`is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d
`
`1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144-46 (2016) (upholding the use of
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). Pursuantto that standard,
`
`the claim language should bereadin light of the specification, as it would be
`
`interpreted by oneofordinary skill in the art. In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We generally give claim terms their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning. See Translogic Tech., 504 F.3d at 1257
`
`(“The ordinary and customary meaning ‘is the meaning that the term would
`
`have to a person ofordinary skill in the art in question.
`
`(quoting Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc))).
`
`The claims, however, “should always beread in light of the
`
`specification and teachings in the underlying patent,” and “[e]ven underthe
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, the Board’s construction ‘cannot be
`399
`divorced from the specification and the record evidence.’” Microsoft Corp.
`
`v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citations omitted).
`
`In other words, “[u]nder a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the
`
`claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaningis inconsistent
`
`with the specification and prosecution history.” Trivascular, 812 F.3d at
`
`1062 (citing Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O., 806 F.3d 1356,
`
`1362 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Any special definition for a claim term must be set
`
`forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`However, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the
`
`claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`Theparties’ dispute does not require 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
`
`necessary to resolve the controversy.””) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We address certain
`
`aspects of Patent Owner’s proposed constructions in our substantive
`
`discussion below.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`D. Obviousness in View ofLeising and Lau
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 17-19, 26, 27, and 36 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Leising and
`
`Lau. Pet. 21-43. Patent Ownerarguesthat the cited combination of Leising
`
`and Lau doesnotdisclose all elements of the independent claims, and that
`Petitioner has not provided a sufficient reason to combine these references
`with a reasonable expectation of success. PO Resp. 29-59. We have
`
`reviewed the entire record before us, including the parties’ contentions and
`
`supporting evidence presented duringthis trial. For the reasons explained
`
`below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence,that claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 17-19, 26, 27, and 36 are
`
`unpatentable as obvious in view of Leising and Lau.
`
`1. Summary of Leising
`
`Leising relates to an “[i]nflatable restraint apparatus for automotive
`
`vehicle occupants including an inflatable torso bag structure” and
`
`“{ijnflatable side curtains .
`
`.
`
`. deployed from the roof.” Ex. 1002, at [57].
`
`Figure 2 of Leising is reproduced below.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00364
`
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Figure 2, reproduced above,illustrates a plan view of a vehicle including a
`
`restraint system. Id. at 2:46-50. The inflatable restraint apparatus of
`
`Leising includestorso restraining bag 43 and side curtain 41. Jd. at 1:33-38,
`
`3:32-33. Gas source 33 supplies gas to the inflatable restraints. Jd. at 3:24—
`
`25. Gas reservoir 35 is connected to conduit 37, which extends along the
`
`roof to housing area 39, whichis located in the roof over the front seat area.
`
`Id. at 3:27-31. Conduit 37 is connected to side curtain 41 andtorso bag 43.
`
`Id. at 3:32-33.
`
`“The side curtains and inflated torso restraining bag may be
`
`interconnected to facilitate positioning orfilling of the inflated structures.”
`
`Id. at [57]; see id. at 4:19-23. When deployed,the side curtains extend
`
`downwardly between the passengerand the door. Jd. at 4:40-41, 5:34-35.
`Prior to deployment, the restraint apparatus is “adapted to be conveniently
`and aesthetically stowed in the vehicular roof structure.” Jd. at 5:36-39.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Figure 8 of Leising is reproduced below.
`
`
`Torreeeet=xee
`ee
` a
` =aFSTSS
`
`
` nu
`
`Figure 8, reproduced above, is an enlarged side elevation of a side curtain
`
`forming part of the restraint apparatus of Leising. Jd. at 2:62-63.
`
`A plurality of restraining webs 53 maintain side curtain 41 in a generally flat
`
`condition uponinflation. Jd. at 3:43-46. Each web 53 includesa notch or
`
`recess 55 at upper and lower endsthereof. Jd. at 3:50-51.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`2. Summary of Lau
`
`Laurelates to airbag assembly 30, which includesinflator 38, front
`
`seat air bag 40 andrearseat air bag 42. Ex. 1003, 2:12-15. Figure 1 of Lau
`
`is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1, reproduced above,is a side view of a vehicle showing front and
`
`rear seat air bags 40, 42 in the deployed condition. Jd. at 1:39-42. In the
`
`deployed positions, the “air bags extend between the seated occupants and
`
`the adjacent vehicle door.” Jd. at 2:32—34. Prior to deployment, “air
`
`bags 40 and 42are rolled to a stored condition and respectively concealed
`
`behind break away doors 43 and 45 .. . which conceals the air bag from
`
`view.” Id. at 2:15-18.
`
`3. Independent Claims 1, 26, and 36
`
`Petitioner’s Contentions
`
`Claim 1 recites an “airbag system of a vehicle.” As discussed above,
`
`Leising and Lau each disclose such an airbag system. See Pet. 21-25.
`
`Claim 1 further recites that the airbag system includes“a single airbag
`
`extending acrossat least two seating positions of a passenger compartment
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`of a vehicle, the single airbag arranged to deploy into the passenger
`
`compartmentalonga lateral side of the vehicle and adjacent eachoftheat
`
`least two seating positions.” Further, the claimed “at least two seating
`
`positions” include “a first seating position in a first seat row ofseats of the
`
`vehicle and a secondseating position in a second seat row ofseats of the
`
`vehicle longitudinally displaced from the first seat row of seats, along the
`
`lateral side of the vehicle.” In other words,“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.” Ex. 1001,
`
`65:29-32.
`
`Petitioner relies on the combination of Leising and Lau as teaching
`
`these claim features. See Pet. 26-28, 31. Petitioner asserts that “Leising
`
`discloses a vehicle safety system that includes side curtain andtorso airbag
`
`portions.” Id. at 21; see Ex. 1002, 1:33-38, 3:38-48, 5:58-60, Figs. 2, 3.
`
`Side curtain 41 of Leising “deploys into the passenger compartment across
`
`the side window 19.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002, 3:38-48, Figs. 1-3; Ex. 1005
`464). Accordingto Petitioner, Leising includes “explicit disclosure of
`
`integrating multiple airbag portions that extend across multiple occupants to
`
`form a single airbag.” Jd. at 26 (citing Ex. 1002, 4:19—23; Ex. 1005 4 58);
`
`see id. at 22-23 (citing Ex. 1002, 3:21—22, Figs. 2, 3; Ex. 1005 4 50).
`
`Petitioner also points to Lau, which teaches an airbag assembly that provides
`
`side airbag protection for both front and rear occupants. Jd. at 25 (citing
`
`Ex. 1005 4 55); see Ex. 1003, Fig. 1. Petitioner further asserts that Leising
`
`teaches a second row ofseats (i.e., the back seats) that are longitudinally
`
`displaced from the first row ofseats(i.e., the front seats). Pet. 31 (citing
`Ex. 1002, 3:19-21, Figs. 2, 3; Ex. 1005 { 70).
`|
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Petitioner argues that “it would have been obvious to a person of skill
`
`in the art to extend the side curtain 41 of Leising to protect occupants in the
`
`back seat based on Lau.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1005 § 58). According to
`
`Petitioner, Leising and Lau “are in the samefield (use of airbags in
`
`vehicles)” and “address the same problem (how toeffectively provide side
`
`airbag protection during an accident).” Jd. (citing Ex. 1005 758). Further,
`
`Petitioner indicates the “motivation [for such a modification would be] the
`
`personal safety of back seat occupants,” and asserts that the “extension could
`
`be made by merely elongating the side curtain 41 and roof storage area of
`
`Leising.” Jd. at 27 (citing Ex. 1005 9 58). Petitioner continues, arguing that
`
`such a “modification . .. would have produced the expectedresult of
`
`providing rear seat occupants with protection during a side impact.” Jd.
`
`(citing Ex. 1005 § 59).
`
`The airbag system of claim 1 further includes “a cover interposed
`
`between the single airbag and the passenger compartmentto coverthe single
`
`airbag prior to deployment.” Petitioner asserts that it would have been
`
`obvious to use break away doors as taught in Lau (see Ex. 1003, 2:14-17,
`
`Fig. 1), to store the airbag of Leising in an aesthetic manner. Pet. 29 (citing
`
`Ex. 1002, 3:38-41, 5:36~39, Fig. 5; Ex. 1005 4 64). According to Petitioner,
`
`“the break away doors would be placed in the roof area and would provide
`
`the expected result of allowing the side curtain of Leising to deploy when
`
`needed, while keeping the side curtain concealed from view before use.” Jd.
`
`(citing Ex. 1005 { 64).
`
`Claim 1 further recites “a single gas-providing system that has only
`
`one inflator that provides gas to inflate the single airbag and whichis
`
`arranged apart from the single airbag.” Petitioner points to Leising’s “single
`
`16
`
`
`
`TPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`gas source 33 for supplying gas to side curtain 41,” which has “only one
`
`inflator 35 .
`
`.
`
`. arranged behind the passenger compartment,” as teaching this
`
`claim feature. Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1002, 3:23-—25, 3:27—28, Figs. 2, 3;
`
`Ex. 1005 7 66). Petitioner further notes that Lau “discloses a single airbag
`
`module that uses a single inflator for providing side airbag protection for
`
`front and rear occupants.” Jd. at 25 (citing Ex. 1005 455). In other words,
`
`as Petitioner notes, “Leising and Lau both disclose to use a single inflator for
`
`multiple airbag portions.” Jd. at 27 (citing Ex. 1005 4 59).
`
`Regarding the claimed “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,”Petitioner points to Leising’s tube 37 that extends from single gas
`
`reservoir 35 to side curtain 41, and delivers gas thereto, as disclosing this
`
`claim feature. /d. at 30 (citing Ex. 1002, 3:28—33, Figs. 2, 3; Ex. 1005 { 68).
`
`Finally, claim 1 recites that “the single airbag has a plurality of
`
`compartments for receiving the gas, and wherein theplurality of
`
`compartments are in flow communication with each other.” Petitioner
`
`points to disclosure in Leising of the use of “‘restraining webs’ to form
`
`compartments for receiving gas from the single gas-providing system,” as
`
`teaching this claim feature. Jd. at 31 (citing Ex. 1002, 3:43-49,Figs. 8, 10,
`
`11; Ex. 1005 § 72). According to Petitioner, the “areas between the
`
`restraining webs 53 form a plurality of compartmentsin the vertical
`
`direction.” Jd. (citing Ex. 1005 4 72). Petitioner further asserts that
`
`“restraining webs 53 do not extend completely to the bottom ofthe side
`
`curtain 41,” and, thus, “the compartments .
`
`.
`
`. are in flow communication
`
`around the lowerportions of the restraining webs 53 becausethe gas that
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`enters the side curtain 41 .. . can flow from one compartmentto another
`
`compartment.” Jd. at 33 (citing Ex. 1002, 3:37-42; Ex. 1005 { 75).
`
`Petitioner notes that the “compartmentsare also in flow communication with
`
`each other aroundtop portionsof the restraining webs 53, as shown in
`
`Figure 10 of Leising.” Jd. (citing Ex. 1005 { 75).
`
`.
`
`Regarding independent claims 26 and 36,Petitioner relies on similar
`
`arguments and evidenceas presented with respect to claim 1, for
`
`corresponding limitations. See Pet. 37-43; Ex. 1005 ff] 95-117, 122-145.
`
`Claim 26 recites methodsteps that generally correspondto the elements of
`
`claim 1, but does not include the claimed cover.
`
`Claim 36 furtherrecites that the airbag is “arranged to deploy
`
`downwardinto the passenger compartment and the conduitis arranged at or
`
`adjacent to a top edgeofthe single airbag.” Petitioner asserts that “side
`
`curtain 41 of Leising, when modified in view of Lau, would deploy
`
`downwardinto the passenger compartment,” and further notes that Leising
`
`“discloses that the tube 37 is arranged at or adjacentto a top edge ofthe
`
`single airbag.” Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1002, 3:28-31, 3:38-48,Figs. 1-3, 8;
`
`Ex. 1005 {J 146-147).
`
`Weagree with Petitioner’s mapping of Leising and Lauto the claims,
`
`as we have described above, and adopt it as our own.
`
`Patent Owner’s Contentions
`
`In its Response, Patent Ownerarguesthat several limitations of the
`
`independentclaims are missing from Petitioner’s proposed combination.
`
`See PO Resp. 30-33, 57-59. Specifically, Patent Ownerasserts that the
`
`cited combination does not teach or suggest “a single airbag extending
`
`across ...a lateral side of the vehicle” across two passenger compartments;
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`that the airbag “deploys downward”; or “a plurality of compartments [with]
`
`flow communication.” Jd. Patent Owneralso arguesthat Petitioner fails to
`
`showthat it would have been obvious to modify Leising in view of Lau with
`
`any reasonable expectation of success. Jd. at 33-56. We address each of
`
`Patent Owner’s argumentsin turn.
`
`“single airbag extending across .. . a lateral side ofthe vehicle”
`across two passenger compartments
`
`Patent Ownerarguesthat the “combination of Leising and Lau would
`
`not have taught or suggested ‘a single airbag extending acrossa lateral side
`
`of the vehicle’ across two passenger compartments, as required by each of
`
`the challenged independent claims.” PO Resp. 30. In this regard, Patent
`
`Ownerarguesthat Petitioner “admits that ‘Leising does not explicitly
`
`disclose that its airbag extends across two seating positions that are
`999
`
`longitudinally displaced along a lateral side of the vehicle’”
`
`(id. (quoting
`
`Pet. 26)), and also argues that “Lau teaches two separate air bags”(id. at 31
`
`(citing Ex. 1003, 2:12—14)). Patent Owner continues, arguing that “Lau
`
`makes no mention of a single air bag extending laterally across front and
`
`rear seating positions, let alone teach or explain how oneofordinary skill in
`
`the art would achieve such an air bag,” and that “the two air bags of Lau
`
`collectively do not extend across the area between the two rowsofseats
`
`(i.e., the B-pillar).” Jd. (citing Ex. 2021 J] 132-133).
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments focus on the references individually,
`
`whereas Petitioner’s asserted ground is based upon the teachingsof the
`
`combination. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (holding
`
`that nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references
`
`individually where the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`of a combination of references). Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments,
`
`Petitioner does not rely on either Leising or Lau individually for a teaching
`
`of a single airbag extending across two rowsofseats. Instead, as discussed
`
`above, Petitioner’s proposed combination relies on disclosure in Lau of
`
`airbag protection of both front and back seat passengers (rather than on
`
`Lau’s use of twoairbagsto do so), as evidence that one of skill in the art
`
`would also have considered safety protection for rear seat occupants, and
`
`would have found it obvious to extend the side airbag of Leising in order to
`
`protect also passengers in the back seat. See, e.g., Pet. 26-27 (citing
`
`Ex. 1005 § 58); see also Pet. Reply 9-10 (“Patent Owner’s contentions. . .
`
`are unavailing because they fail to properly consider the combined teachings
`
`of Leising and Lau,e.g., extending Leising’s side air bag to protect rear seat
`
`occupants, based on Lau’s teachingto use a single unit with one inflator to
`
`protect front and rear seat occupants”); Tr. 16:3-25, 47:11—15 (confirming
`
`Petitioner’s proposed combination). Further, Petitioner, relying on
`
`testimony from Dr. Prasad, describes how such a modification of Leising’s
`
`airbag could be accomplished(i.e., “by merely elongating the side curtain 41
`
`and roof storage area of Leising’). See Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1005 4 58).
`
`Basedon the evidence presented, we find that it would have been within the
`
`level of ordinary skill to extend the side airbag of Leising, and that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have donesoin orderto protect passengers in
`
`the backseat.
`
`Wehave considered Petitioner’s arguments and evidencein light of
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments and evidencepresented in its Patent Owner
`
`Response. Based on the complete record now before us, we are persuaded
`
`that it would have been obviousto extend the side airbag of Leising in order
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`to protect also passengers in the back seat, based on the teachings of Lau.
`
`Thus, we are persuaded that the combination of Leising and Lau teaches or
`
`suggests a “single airbag extending across. .
`. a lateral side of the vehicle”
`across two passenger compartments,as claimed.°
`
`“deploys downward”
`
`Patent Ownerarguesthat the “combination of Leising and Lau would
`
`not have taught or suggested thatthe single, laterally extending airbag
`
`‘deploys downward,’ as required by .. . claim 36.” PO Resp. 32. In this
`
`regard, Patent Ownerasserts that “there is no teaching in Lauthateither of
`
`its two separate airbags deploys downward.” Jd. Asdiscussed above,
`
`however,Petitioner, relies on Leising, not Lau, for the teaching that the
`
`airbag “deploys downward,” as claimed. See Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1002, 3:28—
`
`31, 3:38-48, Figs. 1-3, 8; Ex. 1005 Jf 146-147). Based on the evidence
`
`presented, we find that Leising teachesthat its airbag “deploys downward.”
`
`Having considered Petitioner’s arguments and evidencein light of
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence presented in its Patent Owner
`
`> Patent Ownerproposesthat the recited “single airbag extending acrossat
`least two seating positions of a passenger compartmentof a vehicle...”
`requires “one airbag extending acrossa first seating position of a first row of
`seats and a secondseating position of a second row ofseats as well as the
`area between thefirst and second seating positions”(i.e., the B-pillar). PO
`Resp. 18-19 (emphasis added). Petitioner disagrees. See Pet. Reply 2-3.
`Weneed notresolve this claim construction issue, however, because
`Petitioner’s proposed combination,i.e., extending the side airbag of Leising
`to also protect occupants in the back seat of the vehicle, meets even Patent
`Owner’s narrower proposed construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc., 200 F.3d at
`803; Tr. 42:4-21 (Patent Owner’s counsel agreeing that “[i]f you had an
`airbag, start in the front and one continuousairbag and wentall the way
`back, it would cover the B-pillar.”).
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00364
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Response, we are persuaded that the combination of Leising and Lau teaches
`
`or suggests that “the single airbag is arranged to deploy downwardinto the
`
`passenger compartment,” as claimed.
`
`“plurality ofcompartments [with]flow communication”
`
`Patent Ownerarguesthat the portions of Leising upon which
`
`Petitioner relies to show a plurality of compartments (Ex. 1002, Figs. 8, 11),
`
`“do not, in fact, show more than one compartment.” PO Resp. 57. Rather,
`
`according to Patent Owner, “Leising shows an airbag with only one
`
`compartment”and “explicitly states that the purpose ofthe restraining webs
`is to maintain the side curtain in a flat condition upon inflation.” Jd. at 57—
`58 (citing Ex. 1002, 3:43-46; Ex. 2021 4 205). Patent Owner continues,
`
`arguing that
`
`Petitioner’s assertion that “Figure 11... is a sectional view
`showing the compartmentsofthe side curtain 41,” is also wrong.
`Figure 11 is not a sectional view ofthe side curtain 41 as alleged
`by Petitioner; it is instead a section view of only a fragment of
`the side curtain 41: “FIG. 11 is a fragmentary section taken
`through
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
