Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: June 10, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00291
`Patent 5,732,375
`____________
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
`JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: June 10, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00291
`Patent 5,732,375
`____________
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
`JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00291
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`Petitioner Toyota Motor Corporation filed a Petition requesting an
`inter partes review of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 (“the ’375
`patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner Signal IP Inc., filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted
`“unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`Upon consideration 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
`The ’375 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`A.
`The ’375 patent is titled “Method of Inhibiting 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
`and that it is desirable to inhibit the airbags from deploying if the front
`passenger seat 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 of seat passenger and determining the seating position of the
`passenger to allow or inhibit airbag deployment. Id. at 1:44–50.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00291
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`Figure 7 depicts the seat having 12 sensors arranged as follows: (1) a left
`pair of sensors 1 and 2; (2) a right 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 a rear 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 a right group. Id. at
`4:19–24.
`
`An algorithm calculates a set of decision measures 40 based upon the
`output of the sensors. Id. at 3: 48–49; Fig. 4. The first decision measures
`are a total force, which is the sum of the sensor output values, and a fuzzy
`contribution for the total force. Id. at 3:49–67. The second decision
`measures are a load rating for each sensor, a total load rating, and a fuzzy
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00291
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`contribution for the total load rating. Id. at 4:1–17. The load rating is a
`measure of whether the sensor is detecting some load, and the total load
`rating is the sum of the load ratings for each sensor. Ex. 1001 at 4:2–4, 9–
`11. The third decision measures are a force and fuzzy contribution for each
`pair of sensors and for the center group. Id. at 4:30–47.
`The algorithm also checks for force concentration. Id. 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 summing the load ratings of the sensors in each
`group and comparing to the total load rating. If the rating sum
`of any group is equal to the total rating, a flag is set for that group
`(all right, all front etc.).
`Id. at 4:18–24. Based upon the set of decision measures, a decision
`algorithm determines whether airbag deployment should be allowed or
`inhibited. Id. at 4:64–66.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00291
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`The decision algorithm is depicted in Figure 8, and Figure 8 is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`Figure 8 depicts a flow chart of the deployment decision algorithm.
`
`Whenever an inhibit or allow decision is made, that decision is controlling
`and all other conditions lower on the chart are bypassed. Id. at 5:9–11.
`
`First, the decision algorithm determines if rails of an infant seat are
`detected and whether the infant seat is forward or rear facing. Id. at
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00291
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`4:65–5:9. Deployment is allowed for a forward facing seat and inhibited for
`a rear facing seat. Id. 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
`deployment is inhibited. Otherwise, if the localized force for a
`sensor group is above a threshold and the flag corresponding to
`that group is set <70>, deployment is allowed. If not, the next
`step is to compare the total 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 above its 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 deployment is inhibited.
`Id. at 5:12–27.
`
`B. Challenged Claim
`Claim 11 of the ’375 patent is independent and recites:
`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 deployment 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 above a total
`threshold force;
`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
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00291
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`allowing deployment if the total load rating is above a
`predefined total load threshold, whereby deployment is
`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.
`
`Related Proceedings
`C.
`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-05162 in the U.S. District Court for
`the Central District of California. Pet. 1; Paper 3, 2–3.
`The ’375 patent was the subject of Ex Parte Reexamination
`No. 90/013,386; however, claim 11 was not reexamined. See Pet. 14.
`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 is the subject of a pending petition for
`inter partes review in Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd. v. Signal IP, Inc., IPR2016-00369
`(Paper 1, December 18, 2015).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00291
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`D.
`Petitioner contends that claim 11 is unpatentable as obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over: (1) Schousek1 and Tokuyama,2 and (2) Tokuyama
`and Mazur.3 Pet. 4–5.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Claim Construction
`A.
`Petitioner acknowledges that the ’375 patent expired on December 1,
`2015. See Pet. 5. “[T]he Board’s review of the 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 of ordinary skill in the art in question
`at the time of the invention. “In determining the meaning of the disputed
`claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record,
`examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the
`prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic
`Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips,
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327, issued December 12, 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”).
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00291
`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
`(Fed. 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 example is 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….” (Id. at 4:2–4.)
`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, Andrews
`Dec. at ¶ 34.)
`Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction,
`stating “a load rating, according to the ’375 [p]atent is a measure of whether
`a given sensor is detecting some load.” Prelim. Resp. 3, 13 (citing Ex. 1001,
`4:1–4). For purposes of this decision, we agree with the parties that a “load
`rating” is a measure of whether a given sensor is 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. 23–40. Petitioner provides a
`claim chart identifying how it contends each feature of claim 11 is disclosed
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00291
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`by the asserted references, and relies upon the Declaration of Scott Andrews
`for support. Id. at 34–40; see also Ex. 1009.
`Claim 11 requires, among other things, assigning a load rating to each
`sensor based on its measured force, and then “summing the assigned load
`ratings for all the sensors to derive a total load rating” (the “summing
`limitation”). Airbag deployment is allowed if the total load rating is above a
`predefined total load threshold. Petitioner relies only on Tokuyama as
`disclosing the summing limitation. See Pet. 23 (“Schousek discloses all 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
`Tokuyama discloses this feature of the claim.
`Tokuyama describes a “seat load detection apparatus, used in a seat of
`an automobile such as a private vehicle, for detecting the presence or
`absence of sitting by a passenger.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 1.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00291
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Tokuyama is reproduced below.
`
`
`Tokuyama Figure 1 shows automobile seat 1 with load detection body A
`disposed between cushion material 4 and surface sheet 5. Ex. 1004 ¶ 11.
`Load detection body A includes nine load detection units (S1 to S9)
`disposed on the upper surface side of seat unit 2 and three load detection
`units (S10 to S12) disposed near the front edge of seat unit 2. Id. at
`¶¶ 13–14. In determining whether to deploy the airbag, Tokuyama uses a
`microprocessor “by way of an ON-OFF judgment as to whether a current is
`flowing in each load detection unit S1 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 ¶ 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 S1 to S9 are ON, it is
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00291
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`decided that it is a load due to something other than a person.” Id. More
`particularly, if the set of load decision units S2, S5, and S8, located in a
`vertical row in the middle of the seat, are all OFF, or the set of load decision
`units S4, S5, and S6, located in a horizontal row in the middle of the seat,
`are all OFF, then it is decided that it is a load due to something other than a
`person. Id. Additional determinations concerning the load on the seat are
`made by evaluating the total value of the current flowing between the
`conductors, which corresponds to load pressure. Id., see also id. at
`¶¶ 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
`some load and “assign[s] a load rating to each sensor based on
`its measured force” as required by the final limitations of claim
`11.
`Pet. 28. Patent Owner has not disputed, and we assume for purposes
`of this 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:
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00291
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`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.” (Tokuyama 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 compares this “total
`load rating” to a “total load threshold” of 4 as part of its
`classification algorithm. (Id.; see also Ex. 1009, Andrews Dec.
`at ¶ 66.)
`Pet. 29. Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, there is no express disclosure in
`Tokuyama that it is “adding up” the number of sensors that are ON. We are
`not persuaded that Petitioner has carried its burden by arguing in a
`conclusory manner that “[i]n other words, Tokuyama’s apparatus determines
`a ‘total load rating’ by adding up the number of sensors that are ON,” or that
`“this determination amounts to adding up the sensors’ load ratings.” Pet. 29;
`Ex. 1009, ¶ 66 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s interpretation of Tokuyama is
`supported only by a limited explanation in the Declaration of Scott Andrews,
`which states:
`Again, step (b) in Tokuyama determines whether at least
`four of the nine sensors are on (i.e., are sensing the minimum
`pressure required to activate the sensor). Viewing the “on”
`sensors as binary “1” values and the “off” sensors as binary “0”
`values, this determination amounts to adding up the sensors’ load
`ratings; the sum of these binary values represents the number of
`sensors in the “on” state. Therefore, Tokuyama’s system
`computes a “total load rating.” By determining whether that
`number is at least 4, it compares the total load rating to a “total
`load threshold.”
`Ex. 1009, ¶ 66. Thus, from the evidence relied on by Petitioner, Tokuyama
`determines whether a certain number of sensors is on, but Tokuyama
`provides no indication that it is “adding up” sensor ON information.
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00291
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`Mr. Andrews testimony is not persuasive because it is conclusory and
`provides no explanation of why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`the invention would have understand Tokuyama to be applying a binary
`system based on numerical values for ON and OFF, much less 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 which of those
`units are ON or OFF. Petitioner does not explain how such location
`information would be reflected were Tokuyama properly viewed as a simple
`binary system. Petitioner also neglects to address how Tokuyama’s
`exclusion of three of the twelve sensors from its determination of whether
`four or more of the load detection units are ON relates to the requirement of
`claim 11 of summing the assigned load ratings for all the sensors.
`Petitioner’s contentions are not supported by sufficient evidence to suggest
`that any set of load rating values is summed, or needs to be summed, for
`Tokuyama to operate, even if Petitioner contends that conceptually it
`“amounts to” adding values up.
`“Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
`reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it 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 does not 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
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00291
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`case, Petitioner provides no persuasive explanation or sufficient evidence
`that Tokuyama contemplated “summing the assigned load ratings,” as
`claimed, and instead suggests that by considering the disclosure of the ’375
`patent, Tokuyama can be thought of as accomplishing the same task. There
`is no persuasive evidence that such reasoning is limited to the level of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. Moreover,
`reasoning that the disclosure of Tokuyama “amounts to” what is disclosed in
`the ’375 patent necessarily includes knowledge gleaned from the ’375
`patent. As a result, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has sufficiently
`demonstrated Tokuyama discloses “summing the assigned load ratings for
`all the sensors to derive a total load rating,” as required by claim 11.
`Accordingly, we conclude that 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 Schousek and
`Tokuyama.
`Asserted Obviousness Over Tokuyama and Mazur
`C.
`Petitioner contends claim 11 of the ’375 patent would have been
`obvious over Tokuyama and Mazur. Pet. 41–54. With regard to the
`summing limitation, Petitioner again relies only on Tokuyama. Id. at 52–53.
`For the same reasons discussed above with respect to the Schousek and
`Tokuyama combination, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has sufficiently
`demonstrated Tokuyama discloses “summing the assigned load ratings for
`all the sensors to derive a total load rating,” as required by claim 11.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00291
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`Accordingly, we conclude that 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.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`We determine that Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing on any of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that institution of inter partes review is denied as to the
`challenged claim of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375.
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00291
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`John Flock
`George E. Badenoch
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`jflock@kenyon.com
`gbadenoch@kenyon.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Tarek Fahmi
`Holly Atkinson
`Jason LaBerteaux
`ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`holly.atkinson@ascendalaw.com
`jason.laberteaux@ascendalaw.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
