UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 5,732,375
`Issue Date: March 24, 1998
`Title: METHOD OF INHIBITING OR ALLOWING AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,732,375
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00291
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ............................................ 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .............................................. 1
`C.
`Counsel & Service Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4)) ............ 2
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ................................................ 3
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R. §
`42.104) ............................................................................................................. 3
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ..................................... 3
`B.
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Relief
`Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1)) ..................................................... 4
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) .................................... 5
`
`C.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’375 PATENT .......................................................... 8
`A. Overview of the ’375 Patent .................................................................. 8
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’375 Patent ............................................... 10
`Prior Ex Parte Reexamination and Inter Partes Review Petition ....... 14
`C.
`
`V.
`
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE ’375 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ............... 14
`A. Overview of Schousek ........................................................................ 15
`B.
`Overview of Tokuyama ....................................................................... 18
`C.
`Overview of Mazur ............................................................................. 22
`D. Ground 1: Schousek in view Tokuyama Discloses All the Limitations
`of and Renders Claim 11 Obvious ...................................................... 23
`Ground 2: Tokuyama in view of Mazur Discloses All the Limitations
`of and Renders Claim 11 Obvious ...................................................... 41
`Purported Secondary Considerations .................................................. 54
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 55
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 to Cashler
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327 to Schousek
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication JP
`06-022939 to Tokuyama et al.
`
`English translation of Japanese Unexamined Patent
`Application Publication 06-022939 to Tokuyama et al.
`and associated translation declaration
`
`Excerpts from the File History of U.S. Patent No.
`5,732,375 to Cashler
`
`Decision Denying Institution in Case IPR2015-01003
`
`Order RE Claim Construction from Signal IP v.
`American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02454
`(C.D. Cal.)
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement from
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2:14-
`cv-02454 (C.D. Cal.)
`
`Expert Declaration of Scott Andrews
`
`Excerpt from Ex. Parte Reex. No. 90/013,386
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,454,591 to Mazur et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,232,243 to Blackburn et al.
`
`-iii-
`
`Exhibit 1001
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`Exhibit 1007
`
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`

`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. Part 42, Toyota Motor
`
`Corporation (“Toyota” or “Petitioner”) respectfully requests Inter Partes Review
`
`of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 (“the ’375 patent”), filed December 1,
`
`1995 and issued March 24, 1998 to Robert John CASHLER, and currently
`
`assigned to Signal IP, Inc. (“Signal IP” or “the Patent Owner”) according to the
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“the US PTO”) assignment records. There is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to the claim
`
`challenged in this Petition.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`Petitioner, Toyota, and its corporate subsidiaries Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A.,
`
`Inc. and Toyota Motor North America, Inc. are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`The ’375 patent is currently the subject of the following on-going litigations:
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. et al., No. 2:15-cv-05162
`
`(C.D. Cal.) (“C.D. Cal. Signal IP v. Toyota litigation”); Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford
`
`Motor Co., No. 2:14-cv-13729 (E.D. Mich.); and Signal IP, Inc. v. Fiat U.S.A. Inc,
`
`et al., No. 2:14-cv-13864 (E.D. Mich.).
`
`The ’375 patent was previously the subject of the following on-going
`
`litigations. In each of these cases, the Court entered a partial judgment of
`
`invalidity in connection with claims 1 and 7 of the ’375 patent on May 22, 2015
`-1-
`
`

`
`holding those claims to be invalid as indefinite. This had the effect of removing
`
`the ’375 patent from each of the cases pending appeal: Signal IP, Inc. v. American
`
`Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-02454 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Kia
`
`Motors America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02457 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v. Mazda
`
`Motor of America, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-00491 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc. v.
`
`Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-00497 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP,
`
`Inc. v. Nissan North America, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02962 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP, Inc.
`
`v. BMW of North America, LLC et al., No. 2:14-cv-03111 (C.D. Cal.); Signal IP,
`
`Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-03113 (C.D. Cal.).
`
`Claims 1 and 7 of the ’375 patent were also previously the subject of another
`
`petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) filed by American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
`
`Case IPR2015-01003. The Board issued a decision addressing the petition on
`
`October 1, 2015 and declined to institute IPR. (See Ex. 1006, Decision Denying
`
`Institution of Inter Partes Review, Case IPR2015-01003, Paper 11.) Further, these
`
`same claims were the subject of an ex parte reexamination initiated in response to
`
`a petition filed by Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Ex. 1010, Ex. Parte Reex.
`
`No. 90/013,386.) A reexamination certificate issued July 30, 2015.
`
`C. Counsel & Service Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4))
`Lead Counsel: A. Antony Pfeffer (Reg. No. 43,857)
`
`Back-up Counsel: George E. Badenoch (Reg. No. 25,825) and John Flock (Reg.
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`No. 39,670). Petitioner also intends to request authorization to file a motion for K.
`
`Patrick Herman to appear pro hac vice as a further backup counsel. Mr. Herman is
`
`a litigation attorney experienced in patent cases, and is admitted to practice law in
`
`New York, and in several United States District Courts and Courts of Appeal. Mr.
`
`Herman has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue and
`
`represents Petitioner in the related C.D. Cal. Signal IP v. Toyota litigation,
`
`identified above.
`
`Electronic Service Information: ptab@kenyon.com, apfeffer@kenyon.com,
`
`gbadenoch@kenyon.com, jflock@kenyon.com, pherman@kenyon.com
`
`Post and Delivery: Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, One Broadway, New York, NY 10004
`
`Telephone: 212-425-7200
`
`Facsimile: 212-425-5288
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`Petitioner authorizes the US PTO to charge Deposit Account No. 11-0600
`
`for the fees set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition, and further authorizes
`
`payment for any additional fees to be charged to this Deposit Account.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R. §
`42.104)
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that the patent for which review is sought, the ’375 patent
`
`(Exhibit 1001), is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred
`
`or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Relief
`Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1))
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of and challenges claim 11 of the
`
`’375 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the grounds set forth below, and requests that
`
`this claim be found unpatentable. Cancellation of the claim is requested. This
`
`petition explains in detail the reasons why claim 11 is unpatentable under the
`
`relevant statutory grounds, and includes an identification of where each element is
`
`found in the prior art, and the relevance of the prior art. Detailed claim charts are
`
`also provided; and additional explanation and support for the ground of challenge
`
`is set forth in the Expert Declaration of Scott Andrews. (Exhibit 1009).
`
`Grounds
`
`’375 Claims
`
`Basis for Challenge
`
`1
`
`11
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,474,327 to Schousek (“Schousek”)
`
`(Exhibit 1002) combined with Japanese Unexamined
`
`Patent Application Publication JP 06-022939 to
`
`Tokuyama et al. (“Tokuyama”) (Exhibits 1003 and
`
`1004 (English translation))
`
`2
`
`11
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
`
`Tokuyama combined with U.S. Patent No. 5,454,591
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`to Mazur et al. (“Mazur”) (Exhibit 1011)
`
`As noted above, the ’375 patent (Ex. 1001) was filed December 1, 1995. It
`
`does not claim priority to any earlier filed applications.
`
`Schousek (Ex. 1002) issued December 12, 1995 and was filed January 10,
`
`1995. Thus, it qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Schousek is
`
`also identified as prior art in the ’375 patent’s specification. (See Ex. 1001, ’375
`
`patent at 1:30-40.)
`
`Tokuyama (Ex. 1003) published March 25, 1994, and qualifies as prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Tokuyama was published in Japanese. Pursuant to 35
`
`C.F.R. § 42.63(b), an English translation and associated declaration attesting to the
`
`accuracy of the translation accompanies this Petition (Exhibit 1004).
`
`Mazur (Ex. 1011) published October 3, 1995 and was filed June 21, 1994.
`
`Thus, it qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e).
`
`C. Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3))
`A claim subject to inter partes review is typically given its “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” (37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).) But, “the 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). The ’375 patent expired December 1, 2015.
`
`Thus, Toyota has applied the claim construction standard summarized in Phillips v.
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`AWH Corp., 415 F. 3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).1
`
`On April 17, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
`
`California issued a claim construction order that addressed, among other things, the
`
`’375 patent. (See Ex. 1007, Order RE Claim Construction from Signal IP v.
`
`American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02454 (C.D. Cal.).) While the
`
`Court’s order focused on claims 1 and 7 of the ’375 patent, certain terms construed
`
`by the Court also appear in claim 11. The Court’s constructions of these terms are
`
`reproduced below:
`
`Term
`
`Court’s Construction
`
`“force distribution”
`
`none necessary (see id. at pp. 29-33)
`
`“on the passenger seat”
`
`none necessary (see id. at pp. 33-35)
`
`
`1 Toyota notes that application of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard
`
`would not produce a different result. All of the constructions set forth in this
`
`section are at least consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation, and the
`
`prior art discussed in this petition discloses all the limitations of claim 11 of the
`
`’375 patent regardless of which claim construction standard is applied.
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`Term
`
`Court’s Construction
`
`“sensor array” / “array of
`
`“ordered grouping of [force] sensors” (see id. at pp.
`
`force sensors”
`
`36-39)
`
`Additionally, in cases not involving Petitioner, Patent Owner Signal IP
`
`apparently reached agreement with the defendants in those cases regarding the
`
`meaning of certain ’375 patent claim terms (see Ex. 1008, Joint Claim
`
`Construction and Prehearing Statement from Signal IP v. American Honda Motor
`
`Co., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02454 (C.D. Cal.)):
`
`Term
`
`Signal IP Agreed Construction
`
`“total threshold force”
`
`“a minimum force that allows airbag deployment
`
`based on the total force sensed by the entire sensor
`
`array” (see id. at p. 2)
`
`“force”
`
`“pressure that is indicative of weight” (see id.)
`
`Both the district court’s and the agreed-to constructions are at least
`
`consistent with the ’375 patent’s claims, specification, and prosecution history, and
`
`have thus been utilized when comparing the prior art to claim 11 of the ’375 patent
`
`in this Petition.
`
` One additional term requires further discussion. In particular, claim 11 of
`
`the ’375 patent requires that a “load rating” be “assign[ed] … to each sensor based
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`on its measured force, said load ratings being limited to maximum value.” (Ex.
`
`1001, ’375 patent at 7:11-13.) 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 id. 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.)
`
` Beyond these terms, there is no indication in the ’375 patent that any other
`
`terms in claim 11 should be afforded something other than their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’375 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ’375 Patent
`The ’375 patent explains that it “relates to occupant restraints for vehicles
`
`and particularly to a method using seat sensors to determine seat occupancy for
`
`control of airbag deployment.” (Ex. 1001, ’375 patent at 1:7-8.) According to the
`
`’375 patent, “supplemental inflatable restraints (SIRs) or airbags for occupant
`
`protection in vehicles increasingly involve[] equipment for the front outboard
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`passenger seat.” (Id. at 1:1-14.) The patent goes on to note that “[t]he passenger
`
`seat … may be occupied by a large or a small occupant including a baby in an
`
`infant seat.” (Id. at 1:18-20.) While an airbag should be deployed for large and
`
`small forward facing occupants, “it is desirable to prevent deployment of the
`
`airbag” if an “infant seat … in a rear facing position” is present in the passenger
`
`seat. (Id. at 1:22-29.)
`
`The ’375 patent next notes that “U.S. Pat. No. 5,474,327” (Schousek)
`
`discloses a “sensor arrangement and algorithm” that “successfully cover[s] most
`
`cases of seat occupancy.” (Id. at 1:37-39.) Schousek, however, purportedly does
`
`not “encompass every case of seat occupancy.” (Id. at 1:39-40.) Thus, the ’375
`
`patent is meant to improve on Schousek by “detect[ing] a comprehensive range of
`
`vehicle seat occupants including infant seats for a determination of whether an
`
`airbag deployment should be permitted.” (Id. at 1:44-47.)
`
`To accomplish this, the ’375 patent employs “[a] dozen sensors, judicially
`
`located in the seat….” (Id. at 1:59-61.) A “microprocessor is programmed to
`
`sample each sensor, determine a total weight parameter by summing the pressures,
`
`and determine the pattern of pressure distribution….” (Id. at 1:67-2:3.) “Pattern
`
`recognition for detecting children is made possible by,” among other things,
`
`“assigning a load rating to each sensor.” (Id. at 2:13-16.) According to the ’375
`
`patent, “[t]otal force is sufficient for proper detection of adults, but the pattern
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`recognition provides improved detection of small children and infant seats.” (Id. at
`
`2:5-7.)
`
`The ’375 patent includes a series of figures detailing how it goes about
`
`determining whether to deploy a vehicle airbag. The first of these is Figure 3. As
`
`shown in this figure, the “12 sensor values” are first “input” in step 36. Then, after
`
`some pre-processing, the “decision algorithms” are “run” in step 42. (Id. at Fig. 3;
`
`see also accompanying description at 3:33-4:62.)
`
`Figure 8 provides further information regarding “the decision algorithm 42.”
`
`(Id. at 4:64-66; see also Fig. 8.) While various other unclaimed factors are also
`
`considered by the algorithm, “total force is compared to high and low thresholds”
`
`at step 68. (Id. at 5:12-15.) If the total force detected by the sensors is “above the
`
`high threshold deployment is allowed and if below the low threshold deployment is
`
`inhibited.” (Id.) Then, “[t]he total load rating” is “compare[d] … to high and low
`
`thresholds” at step 72. (Id. at 5:17-21.) “Deployment is allowed if the rating is
`
`above the high threshold and inhibited if below the low threshold.” (Id.)
`
`Prosecution History of the ’375 Patent
`
`B.
`The application that eventually issued as the ’375 patent, U.S. App. No.
`
`08/566,029, was filed on December 1, 1995. (See Ex. 1005, at pp. 1-21.) Claim
`
`11, as originally filed, was a dependent claim that depended on original claim 1.
`
`(See id. at p. 17.)
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`In an April 11, 1997 office action, the examiner rejected all the pending
`
`claims, including claim 11, claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Schousek in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,507,301 (“Barrus”). (See id. at pp. 22-
`
`27.) According to the examiner, Schousek discloses controlling an airbag in view
`
`of total force measured by an array of force sensors in the passenger seat. (See id.
`
`at pp. 25.) In particular, Schousek discloses “allowing deployment if the total
`
`force” measured by the sensors “is above a first threshold and inhibiting
`
`deployment if the total force is below a second threshold.” (Id.) And, Schousek
`
`also discloses “determining a local pressure area” and allowing deployment if the
`
`force measured by the “group” of sensors in that area exceeds another threshold.
`
`(Id.) While Schousek did not disclose the use of “a fuzzy value” as original claim
`
`1 required, this, according to the examiner, was disclosed by Barrus. (Id.) The
`
`examiner then went on to explain that Schousek and Barrus teach the various
`
`limitations required by the dependent claims, including original claim 11. (See id.
`
`at p. 27).
`
`The applicant responded with an amendment on June 9, 1997. As part of
`
`this amendment, claim 11 was re-written in independent form by incorporating
`
`some (but not all) of the limitations of original claim 1. As shown below, certain
`
`limitations were also eliminated to produce the version of claim 11 that eventually
`
`issued:
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`
`
`(See Ex. 1005, at p. 34.)
`
`The applicant argued that this amended claim “recites a method of airbag
`
`control in which deployment is allowed based on total force above a threshold or a
`
`total load rating above a threshold.” (Id. at p. 39.) The applicant conceded that
`
`“Schousek is similar to Applicant’s disclosed control method in that (1) it is
`
`directed to a method of determining whether to allow deployment of airbags based
`
`upon the sensed force on a passenger seat, (2) deployment is allowed if a total of
`
`the sensed forces exceeds a threshold, and (3) the total force is used to discriminate
`
`between adults and children.” (Id. at p. 40.) But, the applicant went on to argue
`
`that Schousek is different from the claimed subject matter as amended because it
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`“discrimat[es] between front and rear facing infant seats … based on a calculated
`
`center of weight relative to a reference line.” (Id.)
`
`According to the applicant, the “techniques” used by the claimed subject
`
`matter “do not utilize center of weight calculations as taught by Schousek, nor do
`
`they utilize neural networks as taught by Barrus.” (Id. at p. 41.) These
`
`“techniques” purportedly allow the applicant’s claimed subject matter to “allow[]
`
`deployment even though the total force sensed by the seat sensors is less than a
`
`total threshold force.” (Id.) The applicant then went on to explain that in the case
`
`of claim 11, a “controller assigns a load rating to each sensor, sums the load ratings
`
`and compares the total load rating to a total load threshold to determine whether
`
`deployment should be allowed.” (Id. at p. 44.) Because the “assigned load ratings
`
`are limited to a maximum value,” this “limits the contribution of any individual
`
`sensor to the total load rating so that the total load rating provides an indication as
`
`to whether the sensed forces are distributed over the passenger seat.” (Id.) This,
`
`according to the applicant, is all that is missing from Schousek and Barrus. (Id.)
`
`After this amendment, the examiner allowed claim 11 and stated that
`
`“neither references [sic] teaches the steps of assigning a load rating to each sensor
`
`based on its measured force, wherein the 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 predefined total
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`load threshold, even if the calculated total force of the sensor array is less than the
`
`total threshold force.” (Ex. 1005, at p. 58.)
`
`Prior Ex Parte Reexamination and Inter Partes Review Petition
`
`C.
`Claims 1 and 7 of the ’375 patent were the subject of an ex parte
`
`reexamination initiated in response to a petition filed by Volkswagen Group of
`
`America, Inc. (See Ex. 1010, Ex. Parte Reex. No. 90/013,386.) These same claims
`
`were also at issue in an inter partes review petition filed by American Honda
`
`Motor Co., Inc. (See Ex. 1006, Decision Denying Institution in Case IPR2015-
`
`01003.) While both the ex parte reexamination and the inter partes review petition
`
`involved some of the same prior art at issue in this petition, both terminated after
`
`claims 1 and 7 were held to be invalid for indefiniteness by the U.S. District Court
`
`for the Central District of California. (See Ex. 1010, at p. 65; Ex. 1006, at pp. 1-2
`
`and 13.) Claim 11, which is the only claim at issue in this petition, has not been
`
`subject of any reexaminations or IPRs.
`
`V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE ’375 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`Claim 11 of the ’375 patent is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Schousek (Exhibit 1002) in view of Tokuyama (Exhibit 1004). Claim 11 is also
`
`obvious over Tokuyama in view of Mazur (Exhibit 1011). Schousek is cited in the
`
`’375 patent’s specification and was one of the references relied on by the Examiner
`
`during prosecution. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001, ’375 patent at 1:30-40.) Tokuyama,
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`however, is not identified on the face of the ’375 patent and was not cited during
`
`prosecution. Mazur is cited on the face of the ’375 patent, but did not serve as the
`
`basis of any rejections during prosecution. (See generally Ex. 1005.)
`
`A. Overview of Schousek
`Schousek, like the ’375 patent, is generally directed to “[a]n air bag restraint
`
`system [that] is equipped with [a] seat occupant sensing apparatus for a passenger
`
`seat…” (Ex. 1002, Schousek at Abstract.) Schousek’s system employs “two sets
`
`of four sensors symmetrically arranged on either side of a seat centerline … to
`
`gather pressure data.” (Id. at 2:17-19; see also Abstract; 4:36-48.) “The sensors
`
`are preferably located just beneath the seat cover…” (Id. at 4:49-50.) Figure 2
`
`provides an example of how the sensors can be distributed:
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 2.)
`
`Schousek’s system also includes a “microprocessor” that is “is programmed
`
`to sample each sensor.” (Id. at 2:24-25.) Using the sensor inputs, the
`
`microprocessor “determine[es] a total weight parameter” and “the center of weight
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`distribution” on the passenger seat. (Id. at 2:25–30; see also Abstract.) This
`
`information is then used to classify the seat occupant and enable/disable airbag
`
`deployment. (See id. at 2:40-41.)
`
`FIG. 5A provides additional details regarding the occupant classification and
`
`airbag enablement process followed by Schousek’s system:
`
`(Id. at Fig. 5A.)
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`

`
`As shown in the figure and discussed in Schousek, “the sensors are enabled
`
`and each sensor sampled” at step 64. (Id. at 5:27-28.) After some calibration
`
`calculations, the “force for each sensor” is “summed to obtain a total force or
`
`weight parameter” at step 68. (Id. at 5:28-31.) Then, the “center of force or
`
`weight distribution” is determined at step 70. (Id. at 5:31-32.) The total weight
`
`and center of weight are used to classify the occupant and make an airbag
`
`deployment decision: “If the total weight parameter is greater than the maximum
`
`infant seat weight … this indicates that a larger occupant is present and a decision
`
`is made to allow deployment.” (Id. at 5:32-35.) This is shown at steps 72 and 74
`
`of Figure 5A. “Otherwise, if the total weight parameter is less than the minimum
`
`weight threshold for an occupant infant seat … it is determined that the seat is
`
`empty and a decision is made to inhibit deployment….” (Id. at 5:36-39.) This is
`
`shown at steps 76 and 78 of Figure 5A. Schousek explains that “the maximum
`
`weight of an infant seat” can be set to “50 pounds,” while the “minimum weight of
`
`an occupied infant seat” can be set to “about 10 pounds.” (Id. at 2:31-33.) Thus,
`
`Schousek’s system will enable airbag deployment if the total weight detected by
`
`array of sensors in the passenger seat is more than 50 pounds, and disable airbag
`
`deployment if less than 10 pounds is detected.
`
`Schousek goes on to explain that airbag deployment may be enabled in some
`
`cases where the total weight detected by the seat sensors is less than the 50 pound
`
`-17-
`
`

`
`threshold. In particular, “[i]f the total weight parameter is between” the 50 and 10
`
`pound “threshold the occupant is identified as an occupied infant seat or small
`
`child….” (Id. at 5:42-44.) If the center of weight is towards the front of the seat,
`
`“a rear facing infant seat is detected and a decision to inhibit deployment if
`
`made….” (Id. at 5:44-46.) This is shown at steps 82 and 84 of Figure 5A. If,
`
`however, “the center of weight distribution is not forward of [a] reference line, a
`
`forward facing infant seat is detected and a decision is made to allow deployment
`
`of the air bag.” (Id. at 5:47-50.) This is shown at steps 82 and 86 of Figure 5A.
`
`B. Overview of Tokuyama
`Tokuyama, like both the ’375 patent and Schousek, “relates to a seat load
`
`detection apparatus … used in a seat of an automobile … for detecting the
`
`presence or absence of sitting by a passenger.” (Tokuyama, Ex. 1004 at ¶ 0001.)
`
`Tokuyama was filed by Alps Electric Co., Ltd. Alps is identified as a preferred
`
`supplier of “pressure sensors” in the ’375 patent’s specification. (See Ex. 1001,
`
`’375 patent at 3:19-21.) Tokuyama’s system is able to recognize an empty seat,
`
`and distinguish a “passenger” from “baggage.” (Tokuyama, Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 0003,
`
`0008, 0029.) The apparatus includes “multiple load detection units” (i.e., sensors)
`
`that are “disposed distributed at least on the inner side of the surface sheet of the
`
`seat unit of the seat….” (Id. at ¶ 0004.) An exemplary array of twelve sensors,
`
`labeled “S1” through “S12,” is depicted in Figure 1:
`
`-18-
`
`

`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 1.)
`
`Tokuyama’s apparatus utilizes a “microprocessor 23” that makes a
`
`passenger seat occupancy determination based on both an “ON-OFF judgment as
`
`to whether a current is flowing in each load detection unit . . . and . . . the detected
`
`value of the current at each load detection unit S1 to S12….” (Id. at ¶ 0029.) A
`
`person is determined to be present if there are four or more “ON” sensors, and if
`
`the pressure exerted on the seat is distributed relatively evenly as opposed to being
`
`largely focused on one spot or at the seat edges. (See id. at ¶¶ 0031-0035.) Figure
`
`7 depicts the process followed by Tokuyama’s apparatus in flow chart form:
`
`-19-
`
`

`
`(Id. at Fig. 7.)
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 7, in step (a), it is determined whether there is any load
`
`exerted on the seat at all. (Id. at ¶ 0031.) If some load is present, the process
`
`proceeds to steps (b)-(g). In step (b), “it is determined whether four or more of the
`
`nine load detection units S1 to S9 are ON. If fewer than three of the nine load
`
`detection units S1 to S9 are ON, it is decided that this is a load due to something
`
`other than a person.” (Id.) Then, in steps (c) and (d), the process considers
`
`whether sensors “S2, S5, and S8” and “S4, S5, and S6” are all OFF. These sensors
`
`-20-
`
`

`
`span the middle of the seat. As a result, if “a person has sat down on the seat unit
`
`2, then” the sensors “will never be all OFF.” (Id.) These are all binary
`
`determinations. In other words, steps (b), (c), and (d) all consider whether the seat
`
`sensors are detecting some load.
`
`The remaining steps consider the magnitude of load exerted on the seat, and
`
`how that load is distributed. In particular, in step (e), Tokuyama considers whether
`
`“the total current flowing in all the load detection units S1 to S9 is greater than or
`
`equal to a prescribed value (for example, 2 mA).” If so, “it is decided that the load
`
`acting on the seat unit 2 is . . . a person.” (Id.) (emphasis added). According to
`
`Tokuyama, the measured current corresponds to load pressure—the current
`
`increases as pressure on the seat increases. (See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 0016–0017.) Then,
`
`in steps (f) and (g), Tokuyama considers whether any one sensor is responsible for
`
`more than 40% of the total measured load, or if sensors S4 and S6, which are on
`
`the seat sides, are responsible for more than 50% of the measured load. (See id. at
`
`¶ 0031.) “If the amount of current detected in any load detection unit is greater
`
`than or equal to 40% of the total value of the current detected, it is decided that it is
`
`a load due to something other than a person.” (Id.) Likewise, “if the sum of the
`
`current detected due to S4 and S9 is greater than or equal to 50%, it is decided that
`
`it is a load due to something other than a person.” (Id. at ¶¶ 0031–0032.)
`
`-21-
`
`

`
`C. Overview of Mazur
`Mazur relates to an “[a]pparatus … for preventing the actuation of an air bag
`
`restraining device.” (Ex. 1011, Mazur at Abstract.) According to Mazur, while
`
`“[a]ir bag restraint systems for vehicles are well known in the art,” there are certain
`
`circumstances in which airbag deployment should be inhibited. (Id. at col. 1, ll.
`
`24-25.) For instance, “[i]t is known to prevent deployment of an air bag during a
`
`vehicle crash when the air bag is associated with a seat location that is
`
`unoccupied.” (Id. at col. 1, ll. 25-27.) This is because airbag deployment in such
`
`circumstances “adds unnecessary expense to repair of the vehicle.” (Id. at col. 1,
`
`ll. 27-30.) Further, “[i]t is also desirable to prevent actuation of an air bag restraint
`
`system when a child restraining seat is secured and positioned in a rearward facing
`
`orientation.” (Id. at col. 1, ll. 40-48.)
`
`To determine seat occupancy and control airbag deployment, Mazur notes
`
`that a “weight sensor” and other types of sensors can be used. (Id. at col. 3, ll. 30-
`
`31; see also id. at col. 1, ll. 31-39.) Mazur explains that “a weight sensor of the
`
`type described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,232,243 to Blackburn et al.” is preferred. (Id. at
`
`col. 3, ll. 39-40.) Blackburn (Ex. 1012) describes the use of an array of pressure
`
`sensors located in the v