UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 5,732,375
`Issue Date: March 24, 1998
`Title: METHOD OF INHIBITING OR ALLOWING AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,732,375
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01382
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ............................................ 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .............................................. 1
`C.
`Counsel & Service Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4)) ............. 3
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ................................................ 4
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R. §
`42.104) ............................................................................................................. 4
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ..................................... 4
`B.
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Relief
`Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1)) ..................................................... 4
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) .................................... 6
`
`C.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’375 PATENT .......................................................... 8
`A. Overview of the ’375 Patent .................................................................. 8
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’375 Patent ............................................... 11
`Prior Inter Partes Review Petitions .................................................... 14
`C.
`
`V.
`
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE ’375 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ............... 15
`A. Overview of Schousek ........................................................................ 15
`B. Overview of Tokuyama ....................................................................... 19
`C. Overview of Tokuyama ’166 .............................................................. 23
`D. Overview of Mazur ............................................................................. 26
`E.
`Ground 1: Schousek in view of Tokuyama and Tokuyama ’166
`Teaches All the Limitations of and Renders Claim 11 Obvious ........ 27
`Ground 2: Tokuyama in view of Mazur and Tokuyama ’166 Teaches
`All the Limitations of and Renders Claim 11 Obvious ....................... 51
`Purported Secondary Considerations .................................................. 63
`
`G.
`
`F.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 63
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1001
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`Exhibit 1007
`
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`Exhibit 1012
`
`Exhibit 1013
`
`Exhibit 1014
`
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 to Cashler
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327 to Schousek
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication JP
`06-022939 to Tokuyama et al.
`
`English translation of Japanese Unexamined Patent
`Application Publication 06-022939 to Tokuyama et al.
`and associated translation declaration
`
`Excerpts from the File History of U.S. Patent No.
`5,732,375 to Cashler
`
`Decision Denying Institution in Case IPR2015-01003
`
`Order re Claim Construction from Signal IP v. American
`Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02454 (C.D. Cal.)
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement from
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2:14-
`cv-02454 (C.D. Cal.)
`
`Expert Declaration of Scott Andrews
`
`Excerpt from Ex Parte Reexamination 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.
`
`Decision Denying Institution in Case IPR2016-00291
`
`Decision Denying Institution in Case IPR2016-00369
`
`Excerpt from Donald G. Fink, Electronics Engineer’s
`Handbook, McGraw-Hill, Inc. (1975)
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication JP
`05-066166 to Tokuyama et al.
`
`English translation of Japanese Unexamined Patent
`Application Publication 05-066166 to Tokuyama et al.
`and associated translation declaration
`
`
`Exhibit 1016
`
`
`Exhibit 1017
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. Part 42, Toyota Motor
`
`Corporation (“Toyota” or “Petitioner”) respectfully requests Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 (“the ’375 patent”), filed
`
`December 1, 1995 and issued March 24, 1998 to Robert Cashler, and assigned to
`
`Signal IP, Inc. (“Signal IP” or “Patent Owner”) (according to the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (“USPTO”) assignment records).
`
`For the reasons set forth below, there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner will prevail with respect to the claim challenged in this petition. In
`
`particular, as explained below, 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).
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`Petitioner Toyota, and its corporate subsidiaries Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A.,
`
`Inc. and Toyota Motor North America, Inc. are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`Claim 11 of the ’375 patent challenged in this Petition was previously
`
`challenged in two other petitions for IPR. The first petition was filed by Petitioner
`
`Toyota in Case IPR2016-291; the second petition was filed by Aisin Seiki Co. Ltd.
`-1-
`
`

`
`
`
`(“Aisin”) in Case IPR2016-00369. The Board declined to institute an IPR in both
`
`cases. (Ex. 1013, Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Case
`
`IPR2016-00291, Paper 13; Ex. 1014, Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes
`
`Review, Case IPR2016-00369, Paper 7.)
`
`Claim 11 of the ’375 patent is currently the subject of the following pending
`
`litigations filed by Patent Owner: Signal IP, Inc. v. Toyota Motor North America,
`
`Inc. et al., No. 2:15-cv-05162 (C.D. Cal.) (the “Toyota litigation”); 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 several other litigations filed
`
`by Patent Owner, all of which have been dismissed. In each case, before dismissal,
`
`the Court entered a partial judgment that claims 1 and 7 of the ’375 patent (not
`
`challenged in this Petition) are invalid as indefinite: 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,
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`
`
`which has been dismissed: Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:14-cv-13729
`
`(E.D. Mich.).
`
`Claims 1 and 7 of the ’375 patent were also challenged in another petition
`
`for IPR filed by American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Honda”), Case IPR2015-
`
`01003. The Board declined to institute an IPR. (Ex. 1006, Decision Denying
`
`Institution of Inter Partes Review, Case IPR2015-01003, Paper 11.) These claims
`
`also were challenged in an ex parte reexamination filed by Volkswagen Group of
`
`America, Inc. (“Volkswagen”) (Ex. 1010, Ex Parte Reexamination No.
`
`90/013,386.) A reexamination certificate issued July 30, 2015.
`
`C. Counsel & Service Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4))
`Lead Counsel:
`John Flock (Reg. No. 39,670)
`
`Back-up Counsel: George E. Badenoch (Reg. No. 25,825). Petitioner also intends
`
`to request authorization to file a motion for Mark A. Chapman to appear pro hac
`
`vice as a further backup counsel. Mr. Chapman is a litigation attorney experienced
`
`in patent cases, and is admitted to practice law in New York, in several United
`
`States District Courts, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Mr.
`
`Chapman has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue and
`
`represents Petitioner in the related Toyota litigation, identified above.
`
`Electronic Service Information: ptab@kenyon.com, jflock@kenyon.com,
`
`gbadenoch@kenyon.com, mchapman@kenyon.com
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`
`
`Post and Delivery: Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, One Broadway, New York, NY 10004
`
`Telephone: 212-425-7200
`
`Facsimile: 212-425-5288
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`Petitioner authorizes the USPTO to charge Deposit Account No. 11-0600 for
`
`the fees set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition, and further authorizes payment
`
`for any additional fees to be charged to this Deposit Account.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R. §
`42.104)
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that the patent for which review is sought, the ’375 patent
`
`(Exhibit 1001), is available for inter partes review, and that Petitioner is not barred
`
`or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims
`
`on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Relief
`Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1))
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of and challenges claim 11 of the
`
`’375 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the grounds set forth below, and requests that
`
`this claim be found unpatentable. Cancellation of the claim is requested. This
`
`petition explains in detail the reasons why claim 11 is unpatentable under the
`
`relevant statutory grounds, and includes an identification of where each element is
`
`found in the prior art, and the relevance of the prior art. Detailed claim charts are
`
`also provided; and additional explanation and support for the grounds of challenge
`-4-
`
`

`
`are set forth in the Expert Declaration of Scott Andrews (Exhibit 1009).
`
`’375 Patent
`Claim
`
`Basis for Challenge
`
`11
`
`1
`
`1
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S-C. § 103(a) over U.S. Patent
`No. 5,474,327 to Schousek (“Schousek”) (Exhibit
`1002) in view of Japanese Unexamined Patent
`Application Publication JP 06—022939 to Tokuyama
`et al. (“Tokuyama”) (Exhibits 1003 and 1004
`(English translation)) and further in View of Japanese
`Unexamined Patent Application Publication JP 05-
`066166 to Tokuyama et al. (“Tokuyama ’ 166”)
`(Exhibits 1 0 1 6 and 1 0 1 7 (English translation))
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tokuyama in
`view of U.S. Patent No. 5,454,591 to Maz11r et al.
`
`(“Mazur”) Gixhibit 1011) and further in View of
`Tokuyama ’166
`
`As noted above, the ’375 patent (Ex. 1001) was filed December 1, 1995. It
`
`does not claim priority to any earlier filed applications.
`
`Schousek (Ex. 1002) issued December 12, 1995 from an application 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 specification. (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. § 10203). 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 (Ex. 1004).
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`
`
`Tokuyama ’166 (Ex. 1016) published March 19, 1993, and qualifies as prior
`
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Tokuyama ’166 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 (Ex. 1017).
`
`Mazur (Ex. 1011) published October 3, 1995 from an application filed June
`
`21, 1994. Thus, it qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e).
`
`C. Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3))
`A claim subject to inter partes review is typically given its “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification.” (37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).)
`
`But, “the Board’s review of the claims of an expired patent is similar to that of a
`
`district court’s review.” In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The
`
`’375 patent expired December 1, 2015. Thus, Toyota has applied the claim
`
`construction standard of Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F. 3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).1
`
`On April 17, 2015, the Central District of California construed certain claims
`
`terms in claims 1 and 7 of the ’375 patent. (Ex. 1007, Order re Claim
`
`Construction, Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02454
`
`
`1 Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard would not produce a
`different result. The constructions set forth herein are consistent with the broadest
`reasonable interpretation, and the prior art discussed in this petition discloses
`and/or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 11 regardless of which claim
`construction standard is applied.
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`(C _D_ Cal_)_) Certain of the terms construed by the Court also appear in claim 11,
`
`and were construed by the Court as follows:
`
`
`
`“sensor array” / “array of
`force sensors”
`
`“ordered grouping of [force] sensors” (Id. at 36-39)
`
`none necessary (Id. at 29-33)
`none necessary (Id. at 33-35)
`
`Additionally, in litigations not involving Petitioner, Patent Owner apparently
`
`reached agreement with defendants regarding the meaning of the following terms
`
`that appear in claim 11 (Ex. 1008, Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`
`Statement, No. 2:14-cv-02454 (C_D_ Cal.)):
`
`“total threshold force”
`
`
`
`“a minimum force that allows airbag deployment
`based on the total force sensed by the entire sensor
`array” (Id. at 2)
`
`“pressure that is indicative ofweight” (Id.)
`
`The foregoing litigation constructions are consistent with the ’375 patent
`
`claims, specification, and prosecution history, and have been used in this petition.
`
`One additional term requires further discussion. In particular, claim 11 of
`
`the ’375 patent requires that a “load rating” be “assign[ed]
`
`to each sensor based
`
`on its measured force, said load ratings being limited to maximum value.” (Ex.
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`
`
`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. (Id. at 4:6-9; Fig. 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 a 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.” (Ex. 1009, Andrews Dec. at ¶¶ 32-34.)
`
`The Board adopted this construction of “load rating” (“a measure of whether
`
`a given sensor is detecting some load”) in its Decisions in Case IPR2016-00291
`
`(Ex. 1013 at 9) and Case IPR2016-00369 (Ex. 1014 at 8).
`
`There is no indication in the ’375 patent that any other terms in claim 11
`
`should be given a meaning other than their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’375 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ’375 Patent
`The ’375 patent explains that it “relates to occupant restraints for vehicles
`
`and particularly to a method using seat sensors to determine seat occupancy for
`
`control of airbag deployment.” (Ex. 1001, ’375 patent at 1:7-8.) According to the
`
`patent, “supplemental inflatable restraints (SIRs) or airbags for occupant protection
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`
`
`in vehicles increasingly involve[] equipment for the front outboard passenger seat.”
`
`(Id. at 1:1-14.) Moreover, “[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.) (Ex. 1009, Andrews
`
`Dec. at ¶¶ 18-19.)
`
`The ’375 patent notes that Schousek (Ex. 1002) discloses a “sensor
`
`arrangement and algorithm” that “successfully cover[s] most cases of seat
`
`occupancy.” (Ex. 1001, ’375 patent at 1:37-39.) Schousek, however, purportedly
`
`does not “encompass every case of seat occupancy.” (Id. at 1:39-40.) The ’375
`
`patent is meant to improve on Schousek by “detect[ing] a comprehensive range of
`
`vehicle seat occupants including infant seats for a determination of whether an
`
`airbag deployment should be permitted.” (Id. at 1:44-47.) (Ex. 1009, Andrews
`
`Dec. at ¶ 20.)
`
`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,
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`
`
`“assigning a load rating to each sensor.” (Id. at 2:13-16.) According to the 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.) (Ex.
`
`1009, Andrews Dec. at ¶ 21.)
`
`The ’375 patent includes a series of figures detailing how it goes about
`
`determining whether to deploy an airbag. The first figure, Figure 3, shows that 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; 3:33-4:62.) (Ex.
`
`1009, Andrews Dec. at ¶¶ 22-23.)
`
`Figure 8 provides further information regarding “the decision algorithm 42.”
`
`(Id. at 4:64-66; Fig. 8.) While various other unclaimed factors are also considered
`
`by the algorithm, “total force is compared to high and low thresholds” at step 68.
`
`(Id. at 5:12-15.) If the total force detected by the sensors is “above the high
`
`threshold deployment is allowed and if below the low threshold deployment is
`
`inhibited.” (Id.) Then, “[t]he total load rating” is “compare[d] … to high and low
`
`thresholds” at step 72. (Id. at 5:17-21.) “Deployment is allowed if the rating is
`
`above the high threshold and inhibited if below the low threshold.” (Id.) (Ex.
`
`1009, Andrews Dec. at ¶¶ 24-27.)
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`
`
`Prosecution History of the ’375 Patent
`
`B.
`The application that issued as the ’375 patent, App. No. 08/566,029, was
`
`filed on December 1, 1995. (Ex. 1005 at 1-21.) Claim 11, as originally filed, was
`
`a dependent claim that depended on original claim 1. (Id. at 17.)
`
`In an April 11, 1997 office action, the examiner rejected the pending claims,
`
`including claim 11, as obvious over Schousek in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,507,301
`
`(“Barrus”). (Id. at 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. (Id. at 25.) In particular, Schousek discloses “allowing
`
`deployment if the total force” measured by the sensors “is above a first threshold
`
`and inhibiting deployment if the total force is below a second threshold.” (Id.)
`
`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 explained that Schousek and Barrus teach the
`
`various limitations required by the dependent claims, including original claim 11.
`
`(Id. at 27).
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`
`
`In an amendment filed on June 9, 1997, the applicant rewrote claim 11 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:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1005 at 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 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
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`
`
`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 40.) But the applicant distinguished
`
`Schousek on the ground that Schousek “discriminat[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 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 explained that in 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
`
`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 the
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`
`
`references did not teach the “load rating” elements of the claim. (Ex. 1005 at 58.)
`
`C.
`Prior Inter Partes Review Petitions
`Claim 11 has been challenged in two prior petitions for inter partes review.
`
`In Case IPR2016-00291, Petitioner Toyota requested IPR of claim 11 on two
`
`grounds: (a) claim 11 is obvious over Schousek in view of Tokuyama; and (b)
`
`claim 11 is obvious over Tokuyama in view of Mazur. In Case IPR2016-00369,
`
`Petitioner Aisin requested IPR of claim 11 based on the same two grounds, as well
`
`as one additional ground. In both cases, the Board denied institution of an IPR on
`
`the two common grounds because the Board concluded that Tokuyama did not
`
`disclose the element “summing the assigned load ratings for all the sensors to
`
`derive a total load rating” in claim 11. (Ex. 1013 at 12-16; Ex. 1014 at 11-14.)
`
`In particular, the Board concluded that Tokuyama’s disclosure of
`
`determining whether any 4 of the 9 seat sensors S1 to S9 are ON did not satisfy the
`
`“summing” element because Tokuyama did not expressly disclose “that it is
`
`‘adding up’ the number of sensors that are ON” and Toyota’s petition did not
`
`present evidence or explain why this was disclosed or obvious. (Ex. 1013 at 13-
`
`15.) Moreover, the Board concluded that Tokuyama did not disclose summing the
`
`assigned load ratings “for all the sensors” because its determination of whether 4 of
`
`the 9 sensors S1 to S9 are ON did not consider 3 additional sensors S10 to S12 on
`
`the front of the seat. (Id. at 14.) The Board’s reasoning is addressed in detail
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`
`
`below, with additional explanation and evidence about what one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have understood Tokuyama to disclose.
`
`V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE ’375 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`Claim 11 of the ’375 patent is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Schousek (Exhibit 1002) in view of Tokuyama (Exhibit 1004) and further in view
`
`of Tokuyama ’166 (Exhibit 1017). Claim 11 is also obvious over Tokuyama in
`
`view of Mazur (Exhibit 1011) and further in view of Tokuyama ’166. Schousek is
`
`cited in the ’375 patent specification and was relied on by the examiner during
`
`prosecution. (Ex. 1001, ’375 patent at 1:30-40.) Tokuyama and Tokuyama ’166
`
`are not identified in the ’375 patent and were not cited during prosecution. Mazur
`
`is cited in the ’375 patent, but was not the basis of any rejections during
`
`prosecution. (Ex. 1005.)
`
`A. Overview of Schousek
`Schousek, like the ’375 patent, is 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 employs “[t]wo sets of four sensors
`
`symmetrically arranged on either side of a seat centerline … to gather pressure
`
`data.” (Id. at 2:17-19; Abstract; 4:36-48.) “The sensors are preferably located just
`
`beneath the seat cover…” (Id. at 4:49-50.) Figure 2 depicts an example of how
`
`the sensors can be arranged:
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 2.) (Ex. 1009, Andrews Dec. at ¶ 41.)
`
`Schousek also includes a “microprocessor” that “is programmed to sample
`
`each sensor.” (Ex. 1002, Schousek 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; Abstract.) This information is
`
`used to classify the seat occupant and enable/disable airbag deployment. (Id. at
`
`2:40-41.) (Ex. 1009, Andrews Dec. at ¶ 42.)
`
`Figure 5A provides additional details regarding the occupant classification
`
`and airbag enablement process followed by Schousek:
`
`-16-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 5A.) As shown in Figure 5A and discussed in Schousek, “the sensors
`
`are enabled and each sensor sampled” at step 64. (Id. at 5:27-28.) After some
`
`calibration calculations, the “force for each sensor” is “summed to obtain a total
`
`force or weight parameter” at step 68. (Id. at 5:28-31.) Then, the “center of force
`
`or weight distribution” is determined at step 70. (Id. at 5:31-32.) The total weight
`
`and center of weight are used to classify the occupant and make an airbag
`-17-
`
`

`
`
`
`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; Fig. 5A (steps 72, 74).)
`
`“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; Fig. 5A (steps 76, 78).
`
`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 enables airbag deployment if
`
`the total weight detected by the array of sensors in the passenger seat is more than
`
`50 pounds, and disable airbag deployment if less than 10 pounds is detected. (Ex.
`
`1009, Andrews Dec. at ¶¶ 43-44.)
`
`Schousek explains that airbag deployment may be enabled in some cases
`
`where the total weight detected by the sensors is less than the 50 pound threshold.
`
`In particular, “[i]f the total weight parameter is between” the 50 and 10 pound
`
`“threshold[s] the occupant is identified as an occupied infant seat or small
`
`child….” (Ex. 1002, Schousek at 5:42-44.) If the center of weight is toward the
`
`front of the seat, “a rear facing infant seat is detected and a decision to inhibit
`
`deployment if made….” (Id. at 5:44-46; Fig. 5A (steps 82, 84).) If, however, “the
`
`center of weight distribution is not forward of [a] reference line, a forward facing
`
`-18-
`
`

`
`
`
`infant seat is detected and a decision is made to allow deployment of the air bag.”
`
`(Id. at 5:47-50; Fig. 5A (steps 82, 86).) (Ex. 1009, Andrews Dec. at ¶ 45.)
`
`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.” (Ex. 1004, Tokuyama at ¶ 0001.)
`
`Tokuyama was filed by Alps Electric Co., Ltd., a preferred supplier of “pressure
`
`sensors” in the ’375 patent specification. (Ex. 1001, ’375 patent at 3:19-21.)
`
`Tokuyama 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 “distributed at least on the
`
`inner side of the surface sheet of the seat unit of the seat….” (Id. at ¶ 0004.)
`
`Tokuyama discloses an embodiment with an exemplary arrangement of twelve
`
`sensors “S1” through “S12.” As depicted in Figures 1 and 8, the sensors S1 to S9
`
`“are disposed on the upper surface side of the seat unit 2” and the sensors S10 to
`
`S12 are “disposed near the front edge of the seat unit 2.” (Id. at ¶ 0013; Figs. 1, 8.)
`
`(Ex. 1009, Andrews Dec. at ¶ 46.)
`
`-19-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tokuyama utilizes a “microprocessor 23” with an analog-to-digital converter
`
`(22 in Figure 6), which detects the “value of the current” flowing in each sensor.
`
`(Ex. 1004, Tokuyama at ¶ 0028.) “This detection output is converted to a digital
`
`signal by an A/D converter 22, and processing is done by microprocessor 23,
`
`serving as the distinguishing unit.” (Id.) Using this information, the
`
`microprocessor makes a passenger seat occupancy determination based on both an
`
`“ON-OFF judgment as to whether a current is flowing in each load detection unit
`
`… and … the detected value of the current at each load detection unit S1 to
`
`S12….” (Id. at ¶ 0029.) A person is determined to be present if any four or more
`
`of the nine sensors S1 to S9 are determined to be “ON” based on the current
`
`flowing through the sensors, and if the pressure exerted on the seat is distributed
`
`relatively evenly as opposed to being largely concentrated in one spot or at the seat
`
`-20-
`
`

`
`edges. (Id. at ¶¶ 0031-0032.) (Ex. 1009, Andrews Dec. at ¶ 47.)
`
`Figure 7 depicts the process followed by Tokuyama in flow chart form:
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1004, Tokuyama at Fig. 7.) As shown in Figure 7, in step (a), it is determined
`
`whether there is any load exerted on any of the load detection units S1 to S12 at
`
`all. (Id. at ¶ 0031.) If some load is present, the process proceeds to steps (b)-(g).
`
`-21-
`
`

`
`
`
`“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. Because these sensors span the middle of the
`
`seat, if “a person has sat down on the seat unit 2, then” these sensors “will never be
`
`all OFF.” (Id.) These determinations in steps (b), (c), and (d) all consider whether
`
`the seat sensors are detecting some load, rather than the amount of pressure
`
`detected at each sensor, and thus disclose assigning a “load rating” under the
`
`construction discussed above (“a measure of whether a given sensor is detecting
`
`some load”). (Ex. 1009, Andrews Dec. at ¶ 48.)
`
`The remaining steps in Figure 7 consider the magnitude of load exerted