REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re application of
`
`Docket No: PR00065
`
`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
`
`
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,732,375 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§311-319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`Mail Patent Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, Petitioner Aisin Seiki
`
`Co., Ltd. (“Aisin Seiki” or “Petitioner”) respectfully request Inter Partes Review
`
`of claim 11 U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 (Ex. 1001, “the ‘375 patent”), which was
`
`filed on December 1, 1995, and issued on March 4, 1998, to Robert John Cashler
`
`and is currently assigned to Signal IP, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) according to the US
`
`Patent and Trademark Office assignment records. There is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in
`
`this Petition.
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) .......................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST UNDER 37 C.F.R. §
`42.8(b)(1) ............................................................................................... 1
`
`RELATED MATTERS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................... 1
`
`LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL .................................................... 2
`
`SERVICE INFORMATION ................................................................. 3
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES — 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................... 3
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104............................ 3
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................. 3
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................................ 4
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`and Relief Requested ............................................................................. 5
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE '375 PATENT ................................................................ 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Brief Description ................................................................................... 6
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the '375 patent ....................... 8
`
`Prior Ex Parte Reexamination and Inter Partes Review
`Petition ................................................................................................. 12
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................. 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Terms Not Requiring the District Court's Construction ..................... 13
`
`Terms Construed By the District Court .............................................. 14
`
`Load Rating ......................................................................................... 15
`
`VI. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT
`LEAST CLAIM 11 OF THE '375 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................... 15
`
`A. Overview of Schousek......................................................................... 16
`
`B. Overview of Tokuyama ....................................................................... 19
`
`C. Overview of Mazur ............................................................................. 22
`
`D. Overview of Zeidler ........................................................................... 24
`
`ii
`
`

`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Ground 1: Schousek in view Tokuyama Discloses All the
`Limitations of and Renders Claim 11 Obvious ................................... 25
`
`Ground 2: Tokuyama in view of Mazur Discloses All the
`Limitations of and Renders Claim 11 Obvious ................................... 42
`
`G. Ground 3 Schousek in view Zeidler and Mano discloses
`All the Limitations of and Renders Claim 11 Obvious ....................... 54
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 to Cashler
`U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327 to Schousek
`Japanese Unexamined Utility Model Patent Application Publication
`JP 06-022939 to Tokuyama et al.
`English translation of Tokuyama et al. and declaration
`Excerpts from 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 Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`Excerpt from File History of 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.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,612,876 to Zeidler et al.
`M. Morris Mano, Digital Logic and Computer Design, Prentice
`Hall, Inc., 1979
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`A. REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`The following is a list of Petitioners (and additional real parties-in-interest
`
`for each party in parentheses): Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd..
`
`B. RELATED MATTERS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioners state that 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.); 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, 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.). The '375 patent was also previously the subject of the
`
`following litigation, Takata Seat Belts v. Delphi Automotive (Western District of
`
`Texas, 5:04-cv-00464).
`
`Claim 11 of the '375 patent is the subject of another petition for inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) filed by Toyota Motor Corporation, Case IPR2016-00291, filed
`
`December 8, 2015. Claims 1 and 7 of the ’375 patent were also previously the
`
`subject of another 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. LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Petitioners provide the following designation of counsel.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`William H. Mandir (Reg No 32,156)
`(wmandir@sughrue.com)
`Sughrue Mion PLLC
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`John M. Bird (Reg No 46,027)
`(jbird@sughrue.com)
`David P. Emery (Reg. No. 55,154)
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`2100 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20037
`T: 202-293-7060, F: 202-293-7068
`
`(demery@sughrue.com)
`Sughrue Mion PLLC
`2100 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20037
`T: 202-293-7060, F: 202-293-7068
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), Powers of Attorney accompany this
`
`Petition.
`
`D. SERVICE INFORMATION
`
`Service information for lead and back-up counsel is provided in the
`
`designation of lead and back-up counsel, above. Service of any documents via
`
`hand-delivery may be made at the postal mailing addresses listed above.
`
`Petitioners also consent to electronic service by email at AisinIPR@sughrue.com.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES — 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`Petitioners authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to charge Deposit
`
`Account No. 19-4880 for the fees set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review, and further authorize payment for any additional fees to be
`
`charged to this Deposit Account.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`
`
`Petitioners certify that U.S. Patent 5,732,375 ("'375 Patent") (Ex. 1001) is
`
`available for Inter Partes Review and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`from requesting an Inter Partes Review challenging the patent claims on the
`
`grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`B. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`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).
`
`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).
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`Non-patent literature publication M. Morris Mano, Digital Logic and
`
`Computer Design ("Mano") (Ex. 1014) was published in 1979 and qualifies as
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`C. Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested
`
`
`
`Petitioners request Inter Partes Review of claim 11 of the '375 Patent (Ex.
`
`1001) on the grounds set forth in the tables below and request that each of the
`
`claims be found unpatentable. 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. Additional
`
`explanation and support for each ground of rejection is set forth in the Declaration
`
`of Dr. Rouhana (Ex. 1009). A verifications of the translation is also provided for
`
`the foreign language document (Ex. 1004).
`
`Ground
`
`Ground 1
`
`'375 Patent Claim Basis for Rejection
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`11
`
`Ground 2
`
`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)
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Ground 3
`
`11
`
`
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Schousek in view of Zeidler (Ex. 1013) and
`
`Mano (Ex. 1014)
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE '375 PATENT
`A. Brief Description
`
`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.)
`
`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
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`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. )
`
`B. Summary of the Prosecution History of the '375 patent
`
`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.)
`
`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
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`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:
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`(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
`10
`
`

`
`
`“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
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`rating, and allowing deployment if the total load rating is above a predefined total
`
`load threshold, even if the calculated total force of the sensor array is less than the
`
`total threshold force.” (Ex. 1005, at p. 58.)
`
`C. Prior Ex Parte Reexamination and Inter Partes Review Petition
`
`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 the
`
`subject of any reexaminations. Claim 11 is the only claim at issue in the petition
`
`IPR filed by Toyota Motor Corporation, Case IPR2016-00271.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A claim subject to inter partes review is given its “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” (37
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`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, Petitioner has
`
`applied the claim construction standard summarized in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`
`F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Petitioners further submit that even under application of the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard the claim would result in interpretations
`
`consistent with Petitioner's constructions.
`
`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.
`
`A. Terms Not Requiring the District Court's Construction
`
`The District Court determined that multiple terms, including “force
`
`distribution" and "on the passenger seat” did not require the Court's construction.
`
`(Id. at pp. 29-35)
`
`13
`
`

`
`B. Terms Construed By the District Court
`
`Term
`
`Court’s Construction
`
`“sensor array” / “array of
`
`“ordered grouping of [force] sensors” (see id. at pp.
`
`force sensors”
`
`36-39)
`
`
`
`
`
`Additionally, 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)
`
`“pressure that is indicative of weight” (see id. )
`
`“force”
`
`
`
`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.
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`C. Load Rating
`
`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 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, at ¶ 49.)
`
`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.
`
`VI. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`CLAIM 11 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
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`obvious over Tokuyama in view of Mazur (Exhibit 1011) and over Schousek in
`
`view of Zeidler (Ex. 1013) and Mano (Ex. 1014). 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,
`
`however, is not identified on the face of the ’375 patent and was not cited during
`
`prosecution. Mazur and Zeidler are 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 of
`
`Shousek provides an example of how the sensors can be distributed:
`
`
`
`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 distribution” on the passenger seat. (Id. at 2:25–30; see also Abstract.) This
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`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:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`17
`
`

`
`
`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
`
`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,
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`“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 of Tokyama. :
`
`Tokuyama’s apparatus utilizes a “microprocessor 23” that makes a
`
`passenger seat occupancy determination based on both an “ON-OFF judgment as to
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`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:
`
`(Id. at Fig. 7.)
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 7, in step (a), it is determined whether there is any load
`20
`
`

`
`
`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 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, as shown in step (e) of Figure 7 if the
`
`total measured current is “less than or equal to the prescribed current,” then
`
`Tokuyama’s system “[j]udge[s]” that the force exerted on the seat is from
`
`“something other than a person.” (Id. at Fig. 7, step (e).)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,
`
`21
`
`

`
`
`are responsible for more than 50% of the measured load. (See id. at ¶ 0032.) “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.)
`
`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 s