throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 12
`Entered: January 5, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01382
`Patent 5,732,375
`____________
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
`JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01382
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`Petitioner Toyota Motor Corporation filed a Petition requesting an
`inter partes review of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 (“the ’375
`patent”) on July 8, 2016. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner Signal IP Inc.,
`filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). With our prior
`authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 11 (“Reply”). We have
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes
`review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the
`petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`petition.”
`Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, and Reply,
`for the reasons provided below based on the particular circumstances of this
`case, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and deny the
`Petition. Accordingly, we do not authorize an inter partes review to be
`instituted as to claim 11 of the ’375 patent.
`I.
`BACKGROUND
`The ’375 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`A.
`The ’375 patent is titled “Method of Inhibiting or Allowing Airbag
`Deployment” and issued on March 24, 1998. The ’375 patent discloses that
`vehicles may have airbags for protecting passengers in a front passenger seat
`and that it is desirable to inhibit the airbags from deploying if the front
`passenger seat is occupied by a small child or an infant in a rear facing car
`seat. Ex. 1001, 1:12–29. The ’375 patent, thus, discloses a method of
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01382
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`detecting a type of seat passenger and determining the seating position of the
`passenger to allow or inhibit airbag deployment. Id. at 1:44–50.
`The ’375 patent discloses a vehicle passenger seat having an array of
`pressure sensors. The array of sensors is depicted in Figure 7 of the ’375
`patent, and Figure 7 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 7 depicts the seat having 12 sensors arranged as follows: (1) a left
`pair of sensors 1 and 2; (2) a right pair of sensors 11 and 12; (3) a front pair
`of sensors 6 and 7; (4) a rear pair of sensors 3 and 10; and (5) a center group
`of sensors 4, 5, 8, and 9. Id. at 3:21–29.
`Sensors 1–12 are also arranged in the overlapping localized areas as
`follows: (1) sensors 1, 6, 7 and 12 in a front group; (2) sensors 2, 3, 4, 5, 8,
`9, 10, and 11 in a rear group; (3) sensors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 in a left
`group; and (4) sensors 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 in a right group. Id. at
`4:19–24.
`
`An algorithm calculates a set of decision measures 40 based upon the
`output of the sensors. Id. at 3:48–49; Fig. 4. The first decision measures are
`a total force, which is the sum of the sensor output values, and a fuzzy
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01382
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`contribution for the total force. Id. at 3:49–67. The second decision
`measures are a load rating for each sensor, a total load rating, and a fuzzy
`contribution for the total load rating. Id. at 4:1–17. The load rating is a
`measure of whether the sensor is detecting some load, and the total load
`rating is the sum of the load ratings for each sensor. Id. at 4:2–4, 9–11. The
`third decision measures are a force and fuzzy contribution for each pair of
`sensors and for the center group. Id. at 4:30–47.
`The algorithm also checks for force concentration. Id. at 4:18. The
`
`’375 patent states:
`[A] check is made for force concentration in a localized area.
`. . . The algorithm determines if the pressure is all concentrated
`in one group by summing the load ratings of the sensors in each
`group and comparing to the total load rating. If the rating sum
`of any group is equal to the total rating, a flag is set for that group
`(all right, all front etc.).
`Id. at 4:18–24. Based upon the set of decision measures, a decision
`algorithm determines whether airbag deployment should be allowed or
`inhibited. Id. at 4:64–66.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01382
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`The decision algorithm is depicted in Figure 8, and Figure 8 is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`Figure 8 depicts a flow chart of the deployment decision algorithm.
`
`Whenever an inhibit or allow decision is made, that decision is controlling
`and all other conditions lower on the chart are bypassed. Id. at 5:9–11.
`
`First, the decision algorithm determines if rails of an infant seat are
`detected and whether the infant seat is forward or rear facing. Id. at
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01382
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`4:65–5:9. Deployment is allowed for a forward facing seat and inhibited for
`a rear facing seat. Id. at 5:1–3.
`
`
`If rails are not detected <60>, the total force is compared
`to high and low thresholds <68>. If it is above the high threshold
`deployment is allowed and if below the low threshold the
`deployment is inhibited. Otherwise, if the localized force for a
`sensor group is above a threshold and the flag corresponding to
`that group is set <70>, deployment is allowed. If not, the next
`step is to compare the total load rating to high and low thresholds
`<72>. Deployment is allowed if the rating is above the high
`threshold and inhibited if below the low threshold. Each of the
`sensor pairs for front, left, right, and rear are compared to
`threshold values <74–80>. If any of them are above its allowed.
`If not, the center group force is compared to a threshold <82> to
`decide upon allowance. Finally, the total fuzzy value is
`compared to a threshold <84> to allow deployment if it is
`sufficiently high, and if not the deployment is inhibited.
`Id. at 5:12–27.
`
`B. Challenged Claim
`Claim 11 of the ’375 patent is independent and recites:
`11. A method of airbag control in a vehicle having an array
`of force sensors on the passenger seat coupled to a controller for
`determining whether to allow airbag deployment based on
`sensed force and force distribution comprising the steps of:
`measuring the force sensed by each sensor;
`calculating the total force of the sensor array;
`allowing deployment if the total force is above a total
`threshold force;
`assigning a load rating to each sensor based on its measured
`force, said load ratings being limited to maximum value;
`summing the assigned load ratings for all the sensors to derive
`a total load rating; and
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01382
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`allowing deployment if the total load rating is above a
`predefined total load threshold, whereby deployment is
`allowed if the sensed forces are distributed over the
`passenger seat, even if the total force is less than the total
`threshold force.
`Ex. 1001, 7:1–20.
`
`Related Proceedings
`C.
`The ’375 patent was previously the subject of a petition for inter
`partes review filed by Petitioner in Case IPR2016-00291 in which Petitioner
`alleged claim 11 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over:
`(1) Schousek1 and Tokuyama,2 and (2) Tokuyama and Mazur.3 IPR2016-
`00291, Paper 2. That petition was denied on June 10, 2016. IPR2016-
`00291, Paper 13. The same grounds were also asserted against claim 11 of
`the ’375 patent in Aisin Seki Co. Ltd. v. Signal IP, Inc., Case IPR2016-
`00369. That petition was denied on June 17, 2016. IPR2016-00369,
`Paper 7.
`Additionally, claims 1 and 7 of the ’375 patent were challenged in
`American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Signal IP, Inc., Case IPR2015-01003.
`That petition was denied on October 1, 2015. IPR2015-01003, Paper 11.
`The ’375 patent was also the subject of Ex Parte Reexamination
`No. 90/013,386, which resulted in the issuance of a reexamination certificate
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327, issued December 12, 1995 (Ex. 1002,
`“Schousek”).
`2 JP 06-022939, published March 25, 1994 (Ex. 1003 and Ex. 1004 (English
`translation) “Tokuyama”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,454,591, issued October 3, 1995 (Ex. 1011, “Mazur”).
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01382
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`confirming the patentability of claims 1 and 7. Claim 11 was not
`reexamined.
`Petitioner states that claim 11 of the ’375 patent is currently the
`subject of two district court cases: Signal IP, Inc. v. Toyota Motor North
`America, Inc. et al., No. 2:15-cv-05162 (C.D. Cal.) and Signal IP, Inc. v.
`Fiat U.S.A. Inc., et al., No. 2:14-cv-13864 (E.D. Mich.). Pet. 2. Petitioner
`further identifies eight additional district court proceedings involving the
`’375 patent that have been dismissed. Id. at 2–3.
`D.
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends that claim 11 is unpatentable as obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over: (1) Schousek, Tokuyama, and Tokuyama ’1664;
`and (2) Tokuyama, Mazur, and Tokuyama ’166. Pet. 5. Thus, the grounds
`asserted in the Petition are the same grounds asserted in Case IPR2016-
`00291, but with the addition of Tokuyama ’166 to each ground.
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Obviousness Over the Asserted References
`Section 325(d) of Title 35 of the United States Code provides:
`In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding
`under this chapter . . . the Director may take into account
`whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or
`substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were
`presented to the Office.
`
`
`4 English translation of Japanese Unexamined Patent Application
`Publication 05-066166 to Tokuyama et al. and associated translation
`declaration (Ex. 1017, “Tokuyama ’166”).
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01382
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`In light of § 325(d), we consider whether the Petition asserts the same or
`substantially the same art or arguments as presented by Petitioner previously
`in Case IPR2016-00291.
`According to Petitioner, “this petition and the supporting expert
`declaration include additional explanation and evidence about what one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood the prior art to disclose,
`which explanation and evidence the Board concluded was not presented in
`Toyota’s earlier petition that challenged claim 11 (in Case IPR2016-291).”
`Pet 1. Petitioner further explains that the “Board’s reasoning” in Case
`IPR2016-00291 “is addressed in detail” in the Petition “with additional
`explanation and evidence about what one of ordinary skill in the art would
`have understood Tokuyama to disclose.” Id. at 14–15. Petitioner then
`proceeds to argue that “contrary to the Board’s conclusions” in Case
`IPR2016-00291, “one of ordinary skill in the art reviewing Tokuyama would
`have understood that Tokuyama” discloses features of claim 11 the Board
`previously found Petitioner had not sufficiently shown. Pet. 34. Similarly,
`Petitioner argues that “Petitioner also respectfully disagrees with the Board’s
`conclusion in Case IPR2016-00291 that Tokuyama cannot add up the binary
`values for the sensors.” Id. at 38. Further with regard to whether Petitioner
`had sufficiently shown in Case IPR2016-00291 that Tokuyama discloses
`summing the assigned load ratings, as claimed, Petitioner states that it
`“respectfully disagrees with [the Board’s conclusion in Case IPR2016-
`00291] because it incorrectly assumes that ‘all the sensors’ are S1 to S12.”
`Id. at 39.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01382
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`With regard to the additional reference, Tokuyama ’166, asserted in
`the Petition in this case, Petitioner first explains that “Tokuyama ’166
`discloses a very similar system to Tokuyama, except that Tokuyama ’166
`included only sensors S1 to S9 on the seat, not sensors S10 to S12 on the
`front of the seat.” Pet. 23. Petitioner does not address Tokuyama ’166 again
`until page forty of the Petition. Id. at 23. At that point, Petitioner relies on
`Tokuyama ’166 “[t]o the extent the Board disagrees” with Petitioner’s
`contentions regarding Tokuyama, and states “it would have been just as
`obvious to use Tokuyama ’166 for this feature as it would have been to use
`Tokuyama.” Id. at 40, 43.
`Patent Owner argues that the “Board should exercise its discretion and
`deny institution of trial as this proceeding represents nothing more than
`incremental-petitioning by Toyota, without any explanation as to why the
`arguments and references now being relied upon could not have been
`presented earlier.” Prelim. Resp. 16.
`Petitioner makes no attempt to explain in the Petition why the
`references that form the bases for Petitioner’s challenge here are not the
`same or substantially similar prior art to that presented in Case IPR2016-
`00291. Petitioner requested and was authorized to file a reply to Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response on the issue of whether the Board should
`decline to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and
`325(d). Paper 9. In its Reply, Petitioner argues that the Petition includes
`“additional explanation and evidence, including new prior art (Tokuyama
`’166 []), that ‘are distinguished substantively’ from the earlier petition
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01382
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`because they squarely address the Board’s reasons for denying that petition.”
`Reply 2. According to Petitioner, “the new Tokuyama ’166 reference
`directly addresses the Board’s reasoning for the ‘all the sensors’ element.”
`Id. Petitioner further asserts that “given the material differences, and the
`resulting strength of the petition, the Board should address the merits, based
`on the more developed and focused record.” Id.
`In consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, and Reply, we
`determine that the prior art asserted by Petitioner in the Petition is “the same
`or substantially the same prior art” previously presented in IPR2016-00291.
`35 U.S.C. §325(d). Three of the four references asserted in the Petition were
`asserted in IPR2016-00291. By Petitioner’s own admission, the additional
`reference asserted in the Petition, Tokuyama ’166, “discloses a very similar
`system to Tokuyama” and is relevant to Petitioner’s arguments “to the extent
`the Board disagrees” with Petitioner’s contentions regarding Tokuyama.
`Pet. 23, 40, 43.
`In its Petition and Reply, the only substantive difference Petitioner
`identifies between Tokuyama ’166 and Tokuyama is that the first discloses
`nine sensors and the second twelve. Pet. 23; Reply 2. The thrust of
`Petitioner’s argument is to dispute our determination in IPR2016-00291
`based on Tokuyama, not to assert Tokuyama ’166 as a new reference that is
`not substantially the same as Tokuyama. To the extent Petitioner disagreed
`with our determination in IPR2016-00291, Petitioner had the opportunity to
`request rehearing in that proceeding and elected not to. We are not
`persuaded that Petitioner’s arguments warrant reconsideration through a
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01382
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`second Petition. See Unilever, Inc. v. The Proctor & Gamble Company,
`Case IPR2014–00506, Paper 17, slip op. at 6–8 (PTAB Jul. 7, 2014)
`(Informative), see also Conopco, Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co., Case
`IPR2014-00506, Paper 25, slip op. at 3–5 (PTAB Dec. 10, 2014)
`(Informative).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Taking into consideration the efficient administration of the Office
`under 35 U.S.C. § 316(b), we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 325(d) and reject the Petition in this proceeding because “the same or
`substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to
`the Office” in IPR2016-00291.
`
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that institution of inter partes review is denied as to the
`challenged claim of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01382
`Patent 5,732,375
`
`
`
`PETITIONER
`John Flock
`johnflock@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`George Badenoch
`georgebadenoch@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`Mark Chapman
`markchapman@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`Tarek Fahmi
`tarekfahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`Holly Atkinson
`holly.atkinson@ascendalaw.com
`
`Jason LaBerteaux
`jason.laberteaux@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
`13

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket