REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re application of
`
`Docket No:
`
`Robert John Cashler
`
`Issued: March 24, 1998
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`Application No. 08/566,029
`
`Filing Date: December 1, 1995
`
`
`
`For: METHOD OF INHIBITING OR ALLOWING AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT
`
` DECLARATION OF DR. STEPHEN W. ROUHANA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 1 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................ 1
`
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS ............................................................................................ 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Instructions ...............................................................................................................9
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications.............................................................14
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE '375 PATENT .................................................................................... 16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Brief Description ....................................................................................................16
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the '375 patent ........................................18
`
`IV.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................... 22
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM 11 OF THE '375 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ................................................. 25
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Overview of Schousek ...........................................................................................25
`
`Overview of Tokuyama .........................................................................................29
`
`Overview of Mazur ................................................................................................34
`
`Overview of Zeidler ..............................................................................................36
`
`Ground 1: Schousek in view Tokuyama Discloses All the
`Limitations of and Renders Claim 11 Obvious......................................................37
`
`Ground 2: Tokuyama in view of Mazur Discloses All the
`Limitations of and Renders Claim 11 Obvious......................................................55
`
`Ground 3 Schousek in view Zeidler and Manno, discloses All the
`Limitations of and Renders Claim 11 Obvious......................................................67
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 73
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 2 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Stephen W. Rouhana, of Plymouth, Michigan, declare as follows:
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
`
`1. My Curriculum Vitae is attached hereto, and it includes a listing of my prior
`
`experience. My background, education, and professional experiences are
`
`summarized below.
`
`2.
`
`I received my B.S. degree with a triple major in Physics, Mathematics, and
`
`Religious Studies from Manhattan College, Riverdale, NY, in 1977 and my M.S.
`
`and Ph.D. degrees in Physics from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, in
`
`1981 and 1983, respectively.
`
`3.
`
`I have over 30 years of experience in the field of automotive safety, including
`
`research and development of airbags, seat belts, sensors, algorithms, crash test
`
`dummies, biomechanics, out-of-position injuries, and many other topics. Some of
`
`this work is outlined below.
`
`4.
`
`I was hired as a Senior Research Scientist by the Research Laboratories of
`
`General Motors Corporation (hereafter, GMR) in May of 1983 to perform research
`
`in the Biomedical Science Department’s Crash Injury Section. Initially, I performed
`
`basic research to understand mechanisms of injury in automotive crashes. After
`
`promotion to Staff Research Scientist in 1987, in addition to continuing research on
`
`
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 3 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`crash injury prevention, I was appointed to the GM Belt Restraint Technical
`
`Committee which reviewed and oversaw vehicle program developments of seat belt
`
`systems and their operation in conjunction with airbags. During this time my
`
`research included research into crash test dummies and their ability to assess injury
`
`in car crash tests. This led to a publication titled “Use of Crash Test Dummies for
`
`Injury Assessment" (Proceedings of the Inaugural International Body Engineering
`
`Conference, IBEC Ltd Publications, 1993). In 1992, I was appointed to the SIR
`
`(Supplemental Inflatable Restraint, or Airbag) Performance Assessment Committee
`
`(SIR PAC). The SIR PAC oversaw vehicle program developments of airbags,
`
`including assessment of “All-Fire” and “No-Fire” thresholds. My role was
`
`representing the biomechanics community at GM which, among other things,
`
`considered effects of airbags on out-of-position occupants. During this time, I
`
`developed a method to measure the speed of the leading edge of a deploying airbag
`
`because it was believed to be related to risk of out-of-position injury risk. This led
`
`to a publication the Journal of Trauma, titled “"Physical and Chemical
`
`Characterization of Air Bag Deployment Effluents" (J. Trauma, Vol. 38(4):528-532,
`
`1995). Around this time I also began developing a method to measure and assess
`
`risk of injury from the noise associated with airbag deployments. This work led to
`
`2
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 4 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`three publications while I was at GM, viz. (a) "Investigation into the Noise
`
`Associated with Air Bag Deployment: Part 1 - Measurement Technique and
`
`Parameter Study" (38th Stapp Car Crash Conference Proceedings, SAE Technical
`
`Paper No. 942218, 1994), and (b) “Ear Injury and Hearing Loss with Automobile
`
`Airbag Deployments” (Accident Analysis & Prevention Vol. 31, 1999), and (c)
`
`“Investigation into the Noise Associated with Airbag Deployment: Part II – Injury
`
`Risk Study Using a Mathematical Model of the Human Ear” (42nd Stapp Car Crash
`
`Conference Proceedings, SAE Technical Paper No. 983162, 1998). Finally, at GM,
`
`I participated in a laboratory investigation of arm injuries from deploying airbags to
`
`out-of-position occupants in car crashes which led to a publication titled
`
`"Assessment of Airbag Aggressivity Relative to Airbag-Induced Forearm
`
`Fractures" (Stapp Car Crash Journal, Volume 45, 2001).
`
`5.
`
`In the late 1980s, because of the expertise I had developed in the field of
`
`automotive safety, I was asked to participate in various committees of the Society
`
`of Automotive Engineers (hereafter, SAE). Among these committees were, the SAE
`
`Inflatable Restraints Standards Committee (ca 1991-2014), the SAE Restraint
`
`Systems Standards Committee (1989-1996), and the SAE Impulse Noise Task
`
`Force (SAE INTF) of the Inflatable Restraints Standards Committee. I was a voting
`
`3
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 5 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`member on all of these committees, and Chairman of the SAE INTF. The Inflatable
`
`Restraints Standards Committee members were expected to develop, review, and
`
`vote on all SAE Standards, Recommended Practices, and Information Reports
`
`dealing with airbags in passenger vehicles.
`
`6.
`
`In the year 2000, I left GM and became employed at Ford Motor Company’s
`
`Scientific Research Laboratory in the Safety Research Department. Shortly after
`
`joining Ford, I was asked to lead the Advanced Occupant Protection research group.
`
`This group of scientists and engineers was focused on improving occupant safety
`
`including considerations of airbags and seat belts. One such project was the
`
`research and development of Inflatable Seat Belts, which had airbags incorporated
`
`into the shoulder belt of a 3-point seat belt. I co-led the research team investigating
`
`the efficacy and design of Inflatable Belts, and I led the team investigating potential
`
`out-of-position effects of Inflatable Belts. This led to two publications, viz. (a)
`
`“Biomechanical Assessment of a Rear-Seat Inflatable Seatbelt in Frontal Impacts”
`
`(Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol 55, pp. 161-197, 2011), and (b) “Biomechanical
`
`Considerations for Assessing Interactions of Children and Small Occupants with
`
`Inflatable Seat Belts” (Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 57, pp. 89 - 137, 2013). My
`
`responsibilities at Ford also included advising multiple vehicle programs on
`
`4
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 6 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`technical issues dealing with seatbelts and airbags as they affect occupant injury
`
`risk. Among other topics, my research at Ford included development of a neck
`
`shield for airbag testing of out-of-position occupants which led to a publication
`
`titled “Development and Evaluation of a Proposed Neck Shield for the 5th
`
`Percentile Hybrid III Female Dummy” (Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 49,
`
`November, 2005). Additionally, I participated in an international project
`
`investigating farside impact injury. This work led to the filing of a patent, which
`
`was granted (US 8,430,424, Issued April 30, 2013) and which involved an occupant
`
`sensing scheme, airbag deployment scheme and an associated algorithm to deploy
`
`frontal and side airbags on the right side of the vehicle for a driver in a right side
`
`crash.
`
`7.
`
`At the time I joined Ford, because of my expertise, in addition to my SAE
`
`committee work, I was also asked to represent Ford in the International Standards
`
`Organization (ISO), and to become chairman of ISO Technical Committee 22, Sub-
`
`Committee 12, Working Group 3, “Test Procedures for Evaluating Vehicle
`
`Occupant Interactions with Deploying Air Bags”. This Working Group was
`
`responsible for development of ISO Technical Reports and Standards dealing with
`
`occupant interactions with deploying airbags. I also represented Ford as the
`
`5
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 7 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`Chairman of a subcommittee of the Side Airbag Technical Working Group. In this
`
`role I led a team of researchers from various organizations as we compared airbag
`
`test procedures proposed by the automotive industry and the National Highway
`
`Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). This work led to a Committee Report
`
`titled “An Analysis of the Results of NHTSA Tests using the TWG Recommended
`
`Procedures for Evaluating Occupant Injury Risk from Deploying Side Airbags”
`
`(2003).
`
`8.
`
`Over the course of my career in automotive safety, I have worked with
`
`numerous engineers involved in design and release of automotive safety systems
`
`such as airbags and seat belts, and with numerous suppliers in the U.S., Germany,
`
`Japan, and many other countries and from all major safety suppliers, including,
`
`among others, Takata Corporation, TRW, Autoliv, Key Safety Systems, Breed, and
`
`Delphi.
`
`9.
`
`I have been an adjunct Professor in the Bioengineering Department at Wayne
`
`State University since 2003.
`
`10. At the end of 2014, I retired from Ford Motor Company in order to pursue
`
`other interests. In September of 2015, I formed a company called Vehicle Safety
`
`6
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 8 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`Sciences, LLC to enable me to perform consulting services in the field of
`
`automotive safety. I am the President and Chief Technical Officer of this company.
`
`11.
`
`I have been awarded twelve (12) U.S. patents, and have at least five (5)
`
`International Patents, two (2) more U.S. Patents in a condition of Allowance, and
`
`three (3) additional U.S. filings pending.
`
`12.
`
`I am author or co-author on 76 publications with numerous presentations,
`
`reports, and invited lectures (listed on my C.V.). I was primary author on three (3)
`
`published SAE Standards.
`
`13. Given the experience disclosed above, I believe I have an excellent
`
`understanding of the state of the art during the period of time of the patents under
`
`discussion and can provide sound judgment as to how persons skilled in the art
`
`would have understood the technical issues at the time.
`
`14.
`
`I am not currently, nor have I ever been, employed by AISIN SEIKI, CO.,
`
`LTD., or any affiliate or subsidiary thereof.
`
`15. My company, Vehicle Safety Sciences, LLC (hereafter, VSS, LLC) is
`
`receiving compensation for my time, billed at my normal hourly rate for time
`
`actually spent reviewing materials and performing my analysis of the technical
`
`issues relevant to this matter. VSS, LLC will not receive any compensation that is
`
`7
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 9 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`dependent on the opinions I formulate or offer below, nor will VSS, LLC receive
`
`any added compensation based on the outcome of the inter partes review of patent
`
`5,732,375 (hereafter, the ‘375 patent).
`
`16.
`
`In writing this Declaration, I have been asked to provide certain opinions
`
`related to the patentability of the ‘375 patent. In doing so, I have considered my
`
`own work experience in research and development of automotive safety systems,
`
`my experience dealing with design and release engineers at General Motors and
`
`Ford Motor Company, and my experiences in dealing with scores of engineers from
`
`the safety supply base. I believe that these experiences render me well-qualified to
`
`judge the level of ordinary skill in the art and the anticipation or obviousness of
`
`claims in view of prior art.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS
`
`17.
`
`It is my opinion that claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 (Ex. 1001, "the
`
`'375 Patent") are unpatentable. My opinions are based on my expertise in the
`
`technology of the '375 patent, as well as my review of the '375 patent, its file history,
`
`and the prior art asserted by the Petitioner. If the patent owner is allowed to submit
`
`additional evidence pertaining to the validity of the '375 patent, I intend to review
`
`8
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 10 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`that as well and update my analysis and conclusions as appropriate, and allowed
`
`under the rules of this proceeding.
`
`18.
`
`I have reviewed and/or analyzed the at least the publications and materials
`
`listed at Section II.B. below, in addition to other materials I may cite in my
`
`Declaration. It should be noted that the opinions I express in this Declaration are
`
`not exhaustive of my opinions on patentability of any claims in the ‘375 patent.
`
`Therefore, if a specific point is not addressed, it should not be construed that my
`
`opinion on that point indicates my agreement or disagreement with the patentability
`
`related to that point.
`
`A. Instructions
`
`19.
`
`I am not an attorney. My analysis and opinions are based on my expertise in
`
`this technical field, as well as the instructions I have been given by counsel for the
`
`legal standards relating to patent validity.
`
`20. The materials I have reviewed in connection with my analysis include the
`
`'375 patent, its file history, and the cited references and exhibits.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that patents are presumed to be valid. I understand that
`
`invalidity in this proceeding must be proven by a preponderance of evidence, and
`
`9
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 11 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`that is the standard I have used throughout my report. Further, I understand that
`
`each patent claim is considered separately for purposes of invalidity.
`
`22.
`
`I am informed that a patent claim is invalid as "anticipated" if each and every
`
`feature of the claim is found, expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference
`
`or product. Claim limitations that are not expressly found in a prior art reference are
`
`inherent if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the
`
`claim limitations. It is acceptable to examine evidence outside the prior art
`
`reference (extrinsic evidence) in determining whether a feature, while not expressly
`
`discussed in the reference, is necessarily present in it.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid as "obvious" if, in view of a prior
`
`art reference or a combination of prior art references, it would have been obvious to
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, taking into account:
`
`the scope and content of the prior art; the differences between the prior art and the
`
`claim under consideration; and the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`24. A person of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle air bag control systems and
`
`their methods of activation at the time of the alleged invention would have had a
`
`degree in physics, mechanical or electrical engineering or equivalent coursework
`
`and at least two years of experience in the area of automotive safety control systems.
`
`10
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 12 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`25.
`
`I am informed that legal principles regarding invalidity of a claim due to
`
`obviousness were addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court. I am informed that the
`
`principles relating to a "motivation," "suggestion," or "teaching" in the prior art to
`
`combine references to produce the claimed alleged invention remain an appropriate
`
`approach in a validity analysis. I am informed that the suggestion or motivation
`
`may be either explicit or implicit, may come from knowledge generally available to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art, and may come from the nature of the problem to be
`
`solved. The test for an implicit motivation, suggestion, or teaching is what the
`
`combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of
`
`the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. The problem examined is not the specific problem solved by the
`
`invention, but the general problem that confronted the inventor before the invention
`
`was made.
`
`26. As I understand it, it is no longer always required to present evidence of a
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine prior art references for purposes of
`
`determining whether an invention is obvious. Prior art can be combined based on
`
`either a teaching, suggestion, or motivation from the prior art itself, or from a
`
`reasoned explanation of an expert or other witness.
`
`11
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 13 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`27. A patent claim composed of several elements, however, is not proved
`
`obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
`
`known in the prior art. In order to prove obviousness, it must be shown that the
`
`improvement is not more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to
`
`their established functions. To determine whether there was an apparent reason to
`
`combine the known elements in the way a patent claims, it will often be necessary
`
`to look to interrelated teachings of multiple pieces of prior art, to the effects of
`
`demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and to the
`
`background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. Also,
`
`in determining obviousness, one must be aware of the distortion caused by
`
`hindsight bias and be cautious of arguments reliant upon hindsight reasoning An
`
`obviousness argument cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements. Instead,
`
`it must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
`
`the legal conclusion of obviousness.
`
`28.
`
`In an obviousness analysis, it is my understanding that there are "secondary
`
`considerations" that should be analyzed if they apply. I am told that these
`
`considerations include (1) whether the prior art teaches away from the claimed
`
`invention, (2) whether there was a long felt but unresolved need for the claimed
`
`12
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 14 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`invention, (3) whether others tried but failed to make the claimed invention,
`
`skepticism of experts, (4) whether the claimed invention was commercially
`
`successful, (5) whether the claimed invention was praised by others, and (6)
`
`whether the claimed invention was copied by others.
`
`29.
`
`I have also been instructed that ultimately claims are construed in light of
`
`how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claims. It is my
`
`understanding that what is to be considered includes the claims, the patent
`
`specification and drawings, and the prosecution history, including any art listed by
`
`the Examiner or the applicant. It is my understanding that information external to
`
`the patent, including expert and inventor testimony and unlisted prior art, are to be
`
`considered in construing the claims only if ambiguities remain. However, expert
`
`testimony may be useful in helping to explain the technology. I further understand
`
`technical dictionaries, encyclopedias, and treatises may also be used in claim
`
`construction, as long as these definitions do not contradict any definition found in
`
`or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents. In my analysis, I have
`
`considered and applied the proposed claim constructions of the Petitioners, unless
`
`otherwise indicated.
`
`13
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 15 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`30.
`
`I understand that an issued U.S. patent is presumed to be valid, and can be
`
`challenged in this proceeding on invalidity grounds only upon proof by a
`
`preponderance of evidence.
`
`B. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`31. The ’375 patent (Ex. 1001) was filed December 1, 1995. It does not claim
`
`priority to any earlier filed applications. I am informed that the Petitioners rely
`
`upon the following patents and printed publications of which, only Schousek was
`
`applied during the prosecution of the '375 Patent, and each of which is prior art to
`
`the '375 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and/or (b) and/or (e):
`
`
`
`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).
`
`14
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 16 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`
`
`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).
`
`
`
`Zeidler (Ex. 1013) issued March 18, 1997 and was filed March 3, 1995. Thus,
`
`it qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`Non-patent literature publication M. Morris Manno, Digital Logic and
`
`Computer Design ("Manno") (Ex. 1014) was published in 1979 and qualifies as
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`32. An explanation of how claim 11 is unpatentable under the statutory grounds
`
`identified below, including the identification of where each element is found in the
`
`prior art references and the relevance of each of the prior art references, is provided
`
`in the form of detailed claim charts.
`
`Ground
`
`Ground 1
`
`'375 Patent Claim Basis for Rejection
`A. Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`11
`
`Ground 2
`
`11
`
`Ground 3
`
`11
`
`Schousek (Exhibit 1002) in view of
`
`Tokuyama et al. (“Tokuyama”) (Exhibits
`
`1003 and 1004 (English translation))
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over
`Tokuyama (Ex. 1003) in view of Mazur (Ex
`1011)
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Schousek in view of Zeidler (Ex. 1013) and
`
`Manno (Ex. 1014)
`
`15
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 17 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE '375 PATENT
`
`A. Brief Description
`
`33. Based on my review, 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 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.)
`
`34. 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
`
`16
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 18 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`seat occupants including infant seats for a determination of whether an airbag
`
`deployment should be permitted.” (Id. at 1:44-47.)
`
`35. 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
`
`recognition provides improved detection of small children and infant seats.” (Id. at
`
`2:5-7.)
`
`36. 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.)
`
`37. 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
`
`17
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 19 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`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. )
`
`B. Summary of the Prosecution History of the '375 patent
`
`38. 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.)
`
`39.
`
`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
`
`18
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 20 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`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).
`
`40. 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:
`
`19
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 21 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`
`
`(See Ex. 1005, at p. 34.)
`
`41. 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
`
`20
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 22 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`Schousek is different from the claimed subject matter as amended because it
`
`“discrimat[es] between front and rear facing infant seats ... based on a calculated
`
`center of weight relative to a reference line.” (Id.)
`
`42. 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.)
`
`43. 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
`
`21
`
`Aisin Seiki Exhibit 1009
`Page 23 of 97
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`its measured force, wherein the load ratings being limited