UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`AISIN SEKI CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2016-00369
`Patent 5,732,375
`_______________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1. Introduction. ................................................................................................ 1
`
`1. Introduction. .............................................................................................. .. 1
`
`2. Overview of the ‘375 Patent. ...................................................................... 1
`
`2. Overview of the ‘375 Patent. .................................................................... ..1
`
`3. Overview of Schousek. ............................................................................... 6
`
`3. Overview of Schousek. ............................................................................. ..6
`
`4. Overview of Tokuyama. ............................................................................. 8
`4. Overview of Tokuyama. ........................................................................... ..8
`
`5. Overview of Mazur. .................................................................................. 10
`
`5. Overview of Mazur. ................................................................................ .. 10
`
`6. Overview of Zeidler. ................................................................................. 13
`
`6. Overview of Zeidler. ............................................................................... .. 13
`
`7. Argument. ................................................................................................. 14
`7. Argument. ............................................................................................... .. 14
`
`A. The Testimony of Dr. Rouhana Should be Given Little or No Weight.
`A. The Testimony of Dr. Rouhana Should be Given Little or No Weight.
` ................................................................................................................... 15
`................................................................................................................. .. 15
`
`B. Petitioner Has Failed to Demonstrate that Claim 11 is Obvious in View
`
`B. Petitioner Has Failed to Demonstrate that Claim 11 is Obvious in View
`of Schousek and Tokuyama. ...................................................................... 16
`of Schousek and Tokuyama ..................................................................... .. 16
`
`C. Petitioner Has Failed to Demonstrate that Claim 11 is Obvious in View
`
`C. Petitioner Has Failed to Demonstrate that Claim 11 is Obvious in View
`of Tokuyama and Mazur. .......................................................................... 19
`of Tokuyama and Mazur. ........................................................................ .. 19
`
`D. Petitioner Has Failed to Demonstrate that Claim 11 is Obvious in View
`
`D. Petitioner Has Failed to Demonstrate that Claim 11 is Obvious in View
`of Schousek, Zeidler and Mano. ................................................................ 20
`of Schousek, Zeidler and Mano. .............................................................. ..20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8. Conclusion. ............................................................................................... 23
`
`8. Conclusion. ............................................................................................. ..23
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`CASES
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................................... 19, 20, 23
`
`
`
`
`
`Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00583 (PTAB Sep. 9, 2015) ....................................................... 16
`
`In re Wilson,
`424 F.2d 1382 (CCPA 1970) ..................................................................... 19
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ........................................................................................ 14
`
`
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)...................................................................................... 16
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`1. Introduction.
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claim 11 of U.S. Patent
`
`5,732,375 (the “’375 Patent”). For at least the reasons explained below, the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) should not institute an
`
`inter partes review because Petitioner has not met its burden to show a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the challenged claim is unpatentable.
`
`
`
`2. Overview of the ‘375 Patent.
`The ‘375 Patent discloses a method of controlling airbag deployment
`
`using an array of pressure sensors on a vehicle passenger seat. Ex. 1001 at
`
`Abstract.1 The passenger seat of a vehicle may be occupied or unoccupied,
`
`and, if occupied, may be occupied by a child in an infant seat. Id. at 1:18-20,
`
`44-47. In the latter case, if the seat is occupied by a rear-facing infant seat it
`
`is desirable to prevent airbag deployment. Id. at 1:28-29. It is also desirable
`
`for the system to be sensitive to possible seating positions of small children.
`
`Id. at 1:49-50.
`
`1 The disclosure of the ‘375 Patent was also discussed by the Board in
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01006. Ex. 1006 at 3 et seq.
`
`1
`
`

`
`In a disclosed embodiment, the passenger seat is equipped with 12
`
`pressure sensors, arranged on the seat
`
`according to Figure 2, which is
`
`reproduced at left. Id. at 3:21-23. In this
`
`example, the sensors are turned on one at
`
`a time, a microprocessor samples each
`
`sensor four times, and the sensed values
`
`are averaged, bias-corrected, and filtered
`
`with a time constant. Id. at 3:41-43. This
`
`resulting value is then used to determine
`
`“decision measures,” id. at 3:48-49,
`
`using “fuzzy logic” to rate and handle
`
`marginal cases. Id. at 2:13, 19-20. The
`
`overall operation is shown in Figure 3 of
`
`the ‘375 patent, which is reproduced at
`
`right.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Figure 4 of the ‘375 Patent, which is reproduced here, shows the
`
`decision measure algorithm flow
`
`chart in a disclosed embodiment.
`
`Id. at 3:48-51. The sensor values
`
`are summed to obtain the total
`
`force. Id. at 3:49-51. Each sensor
`
`is given a “load rating,” which the
`
`specification states is a measure of
`
`whether a given sensor is detecting
`
`some load. Id. at 4:1-4. In a
`
`disclosed embodiment, load ratings
`
`are computed as shown in Figure 6. Loads below a base value (d) have a
`
`load rating of zero. Loads
`
`above the base value have a
`
`rating that is the difference
`
`between that of the base value and the measured load, up to a limit value. Id.
`
`at 4:6-9. The total load rating, which is the sum of the individual load
`
`ratings, is then calculated. Id. at 4:9-11.
`
`Next, the localized areas, shown in Figure 7 (below), are checked for
`
`force concentration. Id. at 4:18-19. The sensors are divided into overlapping
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`front, left, right and rear areas, and the algorithm determines whether all of
`
`the pressure is concentrated in a
`
`particular group. Id. at 4:19-25. If so, a
`
`flag is set for that group. Id. at 4:27-29.
`
`The deployment decision
`
`algorithm in a disclosed embodiment is
`
`shown in Figure 8 of the ‘375 Patent,
`
`which is reproduced below. Initially, a check is made to determine whether
`
`the rails of an infant seat are detected, and if so, whether the seat is facing
`
`forward or rearward. Id. at
`
`4:65-5:1. The decision
`
`algorithm then determines
`
`whether to allow or inhibit
`
`airbag deployment
`
`accordingly. Id. at 5:1-11.
`
`If no infant seat rails are
`
`detected, the decision
`
`algorithm compares the total
`
`force to high (allow) and low
`
`(inhibit) thresholds.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Deployment is allowed if the force is above the high threshold, and inhibited
`
`if it is below the low threshold. Id. at 5:12-15.
`
`If the total force is between the two thresholds (and the force is not
`
`localized for a particular sensor group), the total load rating is compared to
`
`high and low thresholds. “Deployment is allowed if the rating is above the
`
`high threshold and inhibited if below the low threshold.” Id. at 5:15-21.
`
`Thus, airbag deployment is allowed if the total load rating for the sensors is
`
`above a load rating threshold, even if the total force sensed by the sensors is
`
`less than a threshold force.
`
`Claim 11, the sole claim challenged in the present petition, recites the
`
`above-described process and is reproduced below.
`
`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;
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`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 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.
`
`Id. at 7:1-20.
`
`
`
`3. Overview of Schousek.
`Schousek, US Pat. 5,474,327, was cited and specifically considered by
`
`the Examiner during the original prosecution of the application that led to
`
`the ’375 Patent. Ex. 1005 at 23 et seq. It was also cited and discussed during
`
`Reexamination No. 90/013,386 involving the ‘375 Patent. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1010 at 17 et seq.
`
`In Schousek, air bag deployment is determined based on an evaluation
`
`of the weight of a seat occupant vis-à-vis certain thresholds. If the total
`
`weight of the seat occupant is less than a minimum weight of an occupied
`
`infant seat, the seat is determined to be empty and air bag deployment is
`
`inhibited. If the total weight of the seat occupant is greater than a maximum
`
`weight of an occupied infant seat, air bag deployment is not inhibited.
`
`Finally, if the total weight of the seat occupant is determined to be between
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`the minimum weight of an occupied infant seat and the maximum weight of
`
`an occupied infant seat, air bag deployment
`
`depends on factors such as the legal
`
`requirements of where the vehicle is
`
`operated and/or whether the center of
`
`weight distribution is forward or aft of a
`
`seat reference line. Id. at 2:12-46; 4:55 –
`
`5:3; 5:23-50. This algorithm is illustrated in
`
`Fig. 5A of Schousek. See steps 68 – 86 of
`
`Fig. 5A (reproduced at left).
`
`Schousek also describes a fault
`
`detection procedure for an air bag control
`
`system. As illustrated in Fig. 5B
`
`(reproduced here), faults are detected by
`
`comparing the inhibit/no inhibit decisions
`
`reached in five consecutive loops of the
`
`process illustrated in Fig. 5A. Ex. 1004 at
`
`5:51 – 6:1. If the inhibit/no inhibit decision
`
`is consistent over five consecutive loops, it
`
`is deemed correct and that inhibit/no inhibit decision is forwarded to the air
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`bag deployment module. Id. at 5:51-61. If, however, the five decisions are
`
`not the same, a previous inhibit/no inhibit decision is forwarded to the air
`
`bag deployment module and a fault registered. If a large number of
`
`consecutive faults are noted, then a fault condition is reported to the air bag
`
`deployment module. Id. at 5:61-67. If this problem persists, a fault indicator
`
`is illuminated. Id. at 6:2-6.
`
`
`
`4. Overview of Tokuyama.
`Tokuyama, JP06-022939, describes a “seat load detection apparatus”
`
`intended to distinguish between human and non-human seat occupants. Ex.
`
`1004 at Abst. Using a matrix of “load
`
`detection units” (S1 – S12) that are sampled in
`
`sequence, id. at [0028], electric current values
`
`that correspond to loads acting on the load
`
`detection units are detected. Id. Using the
`
`presence (an ON state) or absence (an OFF
`
`state) of such currents, as well as their respective values at each load
`
`detection unit, a microprocessor determines whether a load that is acting on
`
`a seat is due to a person or to something else. Id. at [0029].
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Figure 7 of Tokuyama shows this “distinguishing operation” in more
`
`detail. Initially, in step (a), if all of the load
`
`detections units are OFF, it is decided that no
`
`load is present. Otherwise, if any of the load
`
`detection units is ON, then a series of
`
`elimination tests (steps b-g) are made to
`
`determine if the load should be considered to be
`
`due to something other than a person. Id. at
`
`[0031]. If all of the elimination tests are
`
`satisfied, the load is deemed to be due to a
`
`person sitting in the seat. Id. at [0032].
`
`Otherwise, the load will be considered to be due to something other than a
`
`person, unless one or more of the seat front sensors (S10, S11, S12) is ON
`
`(step (h)), in which case the load will be considered to be due to a child
`
`sitting in the seat. Id. at [0033].
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`5. Overview of Mazur.
`Mazur, US Pat. 5,454,591, describes a system intended to prevent
`
`deployment of an airbag when a rearward facing child seat is occupying a
`
`passenger seat in a vehicle. Ex. 1011 at Abst. The system makes use of a
`
`weight sensor, and either or both of a distance sensor and a seat belt payout
`
`sensor. Id. at 5:3-13.
`
`
`
`
`
`For example, as shown in Figure 2 of Mazur, each of the three sensors
`
`may provide inputs to a controller, which implements an AND function.
`
`When a signal from a crash sensor is deemed to be indicative of a crash
`
`condition, the controller evaluates the sensor inputs to determine whether the
`
`airbag deployment should be permitted or inhibited. Id. at 4:59 – 5:13.
`
`In one circumstance, inputs from the distance sensor and the weight
`
`sensor are evaluated. As shown in Fig. 3, if the sensed weight is greater than
`
`a weight threshold (deemed to be the maximum weight of an occupied child
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`seat, id. at 3:44-53), airbag deployment is always permitted. On the other
`
`hand, if the sensed weight is
`
`below the weight threshold,
`
`the measured distance to an
`
`object occupying the seat is
`
`considered. If that distance
`
`is less than a distance
`
`threshold (considered to be
`
`the distance to a rearward
`
`facing child seat, id. at 4:1-
`
`22), airbag deployment is
`
`prevented, otherwise airbag
`
`deployment is permitted. Id.
`
`at 5:14-31.
`
`In a second circumstance, shown in Figure 4, if the sensed weight is
`
`greater than the weight threshold, airbag deployment is always permitted.
`
`On the other hand, if the sensed weight is below the weight threshold, the
`
`amount of seatbelt payout is considered. If the amount of seatbelt payout is
`
`greater than a payout threshold (considered to be the amount of seatbelt
`
`needed to secure a reward facing child seat, id. at 4:23-45), airbag
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`deployment is prevented, otherwise airbag deployment is permitted. Id. at
`
`5:32-58.
`
`A third circumstance involves use of inputs from all of the sensors and
`
`is illustrated in Figure 5. As shown, if the sensed weight is greater than the
`
`weight threshold, airbag
`
`deployment is always
`
`permitted. If, however, the
`
`sensed weight is below the
`
`weight threshold, the measured
`
`distance to an object
`
`occupying the seat is
`
`considered, and if greater than
`
`the distance threshold, airbag
`
`deployment is always
`
`permitted. If, however, the
`
`sensed weight is below the
`
`weight threshold and the the measured distance to an object occupying the
`
`seat is less than the distance threshold, then the amount of seatbelt payout is
`
`considered. If the amount of seatbelt payout is greater than the payout
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`threshold, airbag deployment is prevented, otherwise airbag deployment is
`
`permitted. Id. at 5:59 – 6:13.
`
`
`
`6. Overview of Zeidler.
`Zeidler, US Pat. 5,612,876, describes a device for inhibiting airbag
`
`deployment when a seat is unoccupied. Ex. 1013 at Abst.; 1:60-63. A seat
`
`occupancy sensor is divided into a front-of-seat
`
`sensing region and a rear-of-seat sensing region so
`
`that “a sitting position close to the front seat edge
`
`can be detected and an appropriate warning signal
`
`emitted.” Id. at 1:63 – 2:8. This arrangement is
`
`depicted in Fig. 1, with the front sensor illustrated
`
`at 3.1 and the rear sensor illustrated at 3.2. Id. at
`
`2:36-41.
`
`The signals from each respective sensor, V (front) and H (rear) are
`
`provided as inputs to an evaluation circuit,
`
`as illustrated in Fig. 2. Id. at 2:64 – 3:3.
`
`Based on the state of the input signals (“1”
`
`for an occupied sensing region, and “0” for
`
`an unoccupied sensing region), the evaluation circuit determines whether
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`airbag deployment should be permitted, or if a warning signal should be
`
`emitted. Id. at 3:5-13, 34-40. The table below shows the possible states of
`
`the input signals and the corresponding seat occupancy situations.
`
`
`
`Id. at 3:45-50. Measure A indicates an unoccupied seat, for which airbag
`
`deployment is inhibited; measure B indicates a correctly occupied seat, for
`
`which airbag deployment is permitted; and measure C indicates a seat that is
`
`occupied incorrectly, for which a warning signal is provided and airbag
`
`deployment is inhibited. Id. at 3:52 – 4:5.
`
`
`
`7. Argument.
`An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information
`
`presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`42.108(c). Here, Petitioner has not met this requirement in any of its
`
`proposed grounds of institution.
`
`
`
`A. The Testimony of Dr. Rouhana Should be Given Little or No
`Weight.
`
`In support of its challenge, Petitioner has provided the declaration of
`
`Dr. Rouhana, Ex. 1009. However, in considering Petitioner’s challenges the
`
`Board should accord the testimony of Dr. Rouhana little or no weight
`
`because it merely repeats the attorney argument provided in the petition
`
`without further explanation. For example, in discussing the allegations of
`
`unpatentability of the challenged claim in view of Schousek and Tokuyama
`
`(Petitioner’s Ground 1), Tokuyama and Mazur (Petitioner’s Ground 2), and
`
`Schousek, Zeidler, and Mano (Petitioner’s Ground 3), the text of the petition,
`
`pp. 25-60, and Dr. Rouhana’s declaration, ¶¶ 66-107, are substantively
`
`identical, except for the words “It is my opinion that” and “It is also my
`
`opinion that” at ¶¶ 66, 80, 88, 96, and 100 of the declaration.2 The Board has
`
`
`
`2 The references to Sections V.E in ¶ 94 of the declaration are to sections
`
`VI.E in the petition. At p. 32, the petition sets forth allegations concerning
`
`the educational background and training of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art that are the same as those set forth in Dr. Rouhana’s declaration ¶ 66. At
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`recognized that merely repeating an argument from the petition in the
`
`declaration of a proposed expert does not give that argument enhanced
`
`probative value. Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc., IPR2014-00583,
`
`Paper 50, slip op. at 8 (PTAB Sep. 9, 2015) (recognizing that where “the
`
`experts’ testimony does little more than repeat, without citation to additional
`
`evidence, the conclusory arguments of their respective counsel,” that
`
`testimony is not useful); and see, 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).
`
`
`
`B. Petitioner Has Failed to Demonstrate that Claim 11 is Obvious
`in View of Schousek and Tokuyama.
`
`In alleging obviousness of claim 11 in view of the combined teachings
`
`of Schousek and Tokuyama, Petitioner admits that Schousek fails to teach the
`
`use of load ratings but contends that Tokuyama discloses same. Pet. at 23-24,
`
`26. As discussed above, a load rating, according to the ‘375 Patent is a
`
`measure of whether a given sensor is detecting some load. Ex. 1001 at 4:1-4.
`
`
`
`pp. 42 and 54, the petition argues that Grounds 2 and 3 are not redundant
`
`with Ground 1 or one another, which argument does not appear in Dr.
`
`Rouhana’s declaration. Finally, at p. 54, the petition comments on the
`
`citation of Zeidler during the prosecution of the application that led to the
`
`‘375 patent, but that commentary does not appear in the declaration.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Petitioner therefore relies on Tokuyama’s use of load detection unit ON/OFF
`
`states to teach load ratings. Pet. at 28.
`
`Assuming for sake of argument that Petitioner correctly characterizes
`
`the ON/OFF states of Tokuyama’s load detection units as “load ratings,” it
`
`nevertheless remains the case that the combination of Schousek and
`
`Tokuyama does not suggest “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 load threshold,” as required by claim
`
`11. First, Petitioner admits that Schousek fails to teach the use of load
`
`ratings, Pet. at 23-24. It necessarily follows therefore, that Schousek cannot
`
`disclose summing assigned load ratings for all the sensors.
`
`Second, according to Tokuyama, the ON/OFF state of individual
`
`sensors determines whether a sensed load is due to a person or something
`
`else. Ex. 1004 at [0031]. For example, the state of sensors S1 – S9 may be
`
`determinative of the nature of the load. Id. Or, if not, then the state of
`
`sensors S2, S5, and S8, or S4, S5, and S6 may be determinative. Id. Or, the
`
`value of currents flowing in S1 – S9 may provide the indication. Id. In no
`
`event, however, is the sum of the assigned load ratings for all the sensors
`
`used to derive a total load rating, nor is it ever used to allow deployment (or
`
`be determinative of any other decision) if the total load rating is above a
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`predefined total load threshold. Thus, Tokuyama does not suggest summing
`
`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 load
`
`threshold. Petitioner reads Tokoyama as teaching “a passenger/no passenger
`
`classification based in part on whether ‘four or more of the nine load
`
`detection units S1 to S9 are on.’” Pet. at 29. While true, Petitioner fails to
`
`account for the fact that S1 – S9 are fewer that the total number of load
`
`sensors (S1 – S12), and so the portions of Tokoyama relied upon cannot
`
`meet claim 11’s condition of summing the assigned load ratings for all the
`
`sensors.
`
`Thus, even if a person of ordinary skill in the art considered the
`
`combined teachings of Schousek and Tokuyama as suggested by Petitioner,
`
`the result would not be the subject matter recited in claim 11. Instead, the
`
`resulting combination may have load ratings of discrete sensors or
`
`combinations of fewer than all sensors used to determine the nature of the
`
`load in a vehicle seat, as taught by Tokuyama, however, there would be no
`
`summing of 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 load threshold, as required by claim 11.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`For at least these reasons, Petitioner cannot show a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the challenged claim is unpatentable under this proposed
`
`ground, CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003) (obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim), citing
`
`In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974); In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382,
`
`1385 (CCPA 1970) (all words in a claim must be considered in determining
`
`patentability) and, hence, no inter partes review should be instituted on the
`
`proposed ground.
`
`
`
`C. Petitioner Has Failed to Demonstrate that Claim 11 is Obvious
`in View of Tokuyama and Mazur.
`
`Petitioner’s allegations of obviousness in view of Tokuyama and
`
`Mazur are also deficient. As with the challenge in view of Schousek and
`
`Tokuyama, Petitioner again relies on Tokuyama for teaching the load
`
`detection units and the requirement of summing of 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 load threshold. Pet. at 44. As
`
`demonstrated above, however, Tokuyama does not teach or suggest such a
`
`requirement. Instead, Tokuyama describes using the state of individual
`
`sensors or combinations of fewer than all of the sensors to make decisions
`
`about the nature of a load on a vehicle seat. Ex.1004 at [0031] – [0034].
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`Mazur is not cited for any teachings regarding this requirement of
`
`claim 11, see, e.g., Pet. at 48-54, therefore, even if a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art considered the combined teachings of Tokuyama and Mazur as
`
`suggested by Petitioner, the result would not be the subject matter recited in
`
`claim 11. Instead, the resulting combination may have load ratings of
`
`discrete sensors or combinations of fewer than all sensors used to determine
`
`the nature of the load in a vehicle seat, as taught by Tokuyama, however,
`
`there would be no summing of 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 load threshold, as required by claim 11. Hence,
`
`Petitioner cannot show a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claim is
`
`unpatentable, CFMT, Inc., 349 F.3d at 1342, and no inter partes review
`
`should be instituted on the proposed ground.
`
`
`
`D. Petitioner Has Failed to Demonstrate that Claim 11 is Obvious
`in View of Schousek, Zeidler and Mano.
`
`Petitioner’s allegations of obviousness in view of Schousek, Zeidler
`
`and Mano are similarly unpersuasive as the other proposed grounds for
`
`institution of trial. Again, Petitioner admits that Schousek fails to teach the
`
`use of load ratings and the summing of load ratings for comparison with a
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`total load threshold as recited in claim 11. Pet. at 54. This time, Petitioner
`
`alleges these teachings are found in Zeidler. Id.
`
`As explained above, in Zeidler, two seat sensing regions are evaluated
`
`in order to determine whether a seat is occupied and, if so, whether the
`
`occupant is seated correctly. When an occupant is located in a seat sensing
`
`region, the output of the corresponding sensor is a logic “1,” otherwise it is a
`
`logic “0.” Ex. 1013 at 3:34-40. Petitioner reads these logic states as “load
`
`ratings.” Pet. at 55. Assuming for sake of argument this is correct, Petitioner
`
`cannot show that Zeidler teaches “summing the assigned load ratings for all
`
`the sensors to derive a total load rating,” or “allowing deployment if the total
`
`load rating is above a predefined total load threshold,” as required by claim
`
`11.
`
`Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, Zeidler does not teach any scheme
`
`employing Boolean arithmetic3 in order to determine whether the sum of any
`
`assigned load ratings determine whether or not airbag deployment should be
`
`allowed. Pet. at 55-56. Instead, Zeidler is clear that whether or not airbag
`
`deployment is permitted depends on the output values of individual seat
`
`sensing regions, not their sum. In particular, airbag deployment is permitted
`
`in circumstances defined by measure B in the following table:
`
`
`
`
`3 Petitioner cites Mano for teaching such arithmetic. Pet. at 56.
`
`21
`
`

`
`
`
`Id. at 3:45 – 4:1.
`
`
`
`According to Petitioner, the Boolean sum of the values of V and H
`
`could be used to determine airbag deployment. Pet. at 56. However, not only
`
`is such a scheme not described by Zeidler, it would not not meet the
`
`requirements of claim 11, which include “allowing deployment if the total
`
`load rating is above a predefined total load threshold.” If the threshold were
`
`“0,” then the scheme proposed by Petitioner would have either measure B or
`
`measure C permitting deployment. This would mean that airbag deployment
`
`would be permitted even though the seat occupant is not seated correctly – a
`
`condition forbidden by the goals of Zeidler, id. at 1:55-59, as well as its
`
`teachings. Id. at 4:1-5. Nor could the predefined total load threshold be “1,”
`
`because that would exclude airbag deployment for a measure B situation, in
`
`which the seat is correctly occupied and airbag deployment allowed.
`
`
`
`Thus, contrary to Petitioner’s argument, Zeidler does not teach or
`
`suggest “summing the assigned load ratings for all the sensors to derive a
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`total load rating,” or “allowing deployment if the total load rating is above a
`
`predefined total load threshold,” as required by claim 11. Hence, even if one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art considered the combined teachings of Schousek,
`
`Zeidler, and Mano, one would not arrive at the subject matter recited in
`
`claim 11 and so no inter partes review should be instituted on the proposed
`
`ground. CFMT, Inc., 349 F.3d at 1342.
`
`
`8. Conclusion.
`For at least the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has failed to show that
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any of
`
`the claims challenged in the petition; hence, no inter partes review should be
`
`instituted on any of the identified grounds. Further, as this is Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response, it is not a comprehensive rebuttal to all arguments
`
`raised by the Petition. If a trial is instituted, Patent Owner reserves the right
`
`to contest the Petition on all grounds permitted under the applicable rules.
`
`Moreover, nothing herein should be construed as a concession or admission
`
`by Patent Owner as to any fact or argument proffered in the Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 30, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`Reg. No. 41,402
`
`23
`
`

`
`Ascenda Law Group, PC
`333 W San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Email: tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
`24
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`was served on March 30, 2016, by filing this document though the Patent
`Review Processing System as well as by delivering a copy via email directed
`to the attorneys of record for the Petitioner at the following address:
`William H. Mandir
`John M. Bird
`David P. Emery
`Sughrue Mion PLLC
`2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20037
`
`AisinIPR@sughrue.com
`
`
`
`The parties have agreed to electronic service in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`Dated: March 30, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reg. No. 41,402
`Ascenda Law Group, PC
`333 W San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Email: patents@ascendalaw.com