`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`IEE SENSING, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`Case IPR 2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: February 12, 2019
`__________
`
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
`JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`FRANK A. ANGILERI, ESQUIRE
`ANDREW B. TURNER, ESQUIRE
`Brooks Kushman, P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, Michigan 48075
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`JASON R. MUDD, ESQUIRE
`MARK C. LANG, ESQUIRE.
`Erise IP
`7015 College Blvd, Suite 700
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`
`February 12, 2019, commencing at 10:00 a.m. at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`Proceedings begin at 10:02 a.m.
`JUDGE JUNG: All right, this is the oral hearing for Case
`IPR2018-00179, between Petitioner IEE Sensing and Patent Owner
`Delphi Technologies. Petitioner challenges Claims 1 through 8 of
`U.S. Patent Number 8,500,194.
`We'll start with Counsel for Petitioner and followed by Counsel
`for Patent Owner. Please state your names for the record.
`MR. ANGILERI: Your Honor, my name is Frank Angileri and
`with me is Andrew Turner. And we will both be arguing.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay, thank you, Mr. Angileri.
`MR. MUDD: Your Honor, Jason Mudd and Mark Lang for
`Patent Owner, Delphi Technologies, Limited. And I will be arguing.
`JUDGE JUNG: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
`MR. MUDD: Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE JUNG: As stated in the trial hearing order, each party
`has 60 minutes of total argument time to present its argument. The
`Petitioner will proceed first followed by Patent Owner.
`To ensure that the transcript is clear, please refer to your
`demonstratives by slide number. And if you believe one party is
`arguing something improper, please raise that issue at the end of the
`presentation rather than interrupting the other side’s presentation.
`With all that said, Mr. Angileri, you may proceed when you're
`ready.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`MR. ANGILERI: Thank you, Your Honor. And would you
`like us to reserve a specific time now or --
`JUDGE JUNG: Yes. Do you have a time in mind for --
`MR. ANGILERI: I think 20 minutes.
`JUDGE JUNG: Twenty minutes.
`MR. ANGILERI: For rebuttal. Oh, and, Your Honor, would
`you like a hard copy of our presentation?
`JUDGE JUNG: Oh, thank you, but I have an electronic copy
`that I'll be using.
`MR. ANGILERI: Okay.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay, before you get started with your main
`presentation --
`MR. ANGILERI: Yes.
`JUDGE JUNG: -- I just want to verify, you have no objections
`to the Patent Owner's demonstratives?
`MR. ANGILERI: Correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. And then also I wanted to touch on the
`level of ordinary skill. I don't think you're going to touch on it during
`your presentation, but do you agree with Patent Owner's level of
`ordinary skill regarding the specific additional experience required?
`That was one point of difference between your definition of
`ordinary skill and Patent Owner's level of ordinary skill.
`MR. ANGILERI: May I confer with my colleague?
`JUDGE JUNG: Yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`MR. ANGILERI: Actually, is it all right if Mr. Turner asks a
`question?
`JUDGE JUNG: Oh, yes. Go ahead, Mr. Turner.
`MR. TURNER: Your Honor, we disagree with some of their
`specific, their view of the person of ordinary skill in the art that
`requires specific automotive experience.
`JUDGE JUNG: All right. And then the one last question, if we
`did accept Patent Owner's definition of the level of ordinary skill,
`would that impact your arguments in any significant way?
`MR. TURNER: No, it wouldn't.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. And then I'd like to turn to the claims
`for a moment before we start the presentation.
`MR. ANGILERI: Sure.
`JUDGE JUNG: Do you have a copy of the claims in front of
`
`you?
`
`MR. ANGILERI: I do. It's actually, can I put up Slide 2?
`JUDGE JUNG: All right.
`MR. ANGILERI: And that's at least Claim 1 anyway.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay.
`MR. ANGILERI: I don't know if that covers the points you
`wanted to make.
`JUDGE JUNG: There was a, for example, in the Claim 1, and
`Claim 8 specifically.
`MR. ANGILERI: Claim 8?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Claim 1 and Claim 8. There are, in
`specifically Claim 1, there seems to be a clear typographical error.
`And you don't quite bring it up in your petition so I assume, would it
`be correct to say that you also believe it's a clear typographical error?
`MR. ANGILERI: The typographical error you're referring to,
`Your Honor?
`JUDGE JUNG: It's, if you have a copy of the patent, it's in
`Column 7, around Line 21. And it's that final --
`MR. ANGILERI: Is that in Claim 2?
`JUDGE JUNG: Claim 1.
`MR. ANGILERI: Claim 1.
`JUDGE JUNG: Yes.
`MR. ANGILERI: Did you say 25?
`JUDGE JUNG: 21.
`MR. ANGILERI: 21.
`JUDGE JUNG: So it says, in Line 20, the first inductor
`inductively coupled to the second inductor such that the current in the
`first in inductor --
`MR. ANGILERI: Oh. It's a typo.
`JUDGE JUNG: And you agree that's a clear typo?
`MR. ANGILERI: The in? The first in?
`JUDGE JUNG: Yes, the first in after first.
`MR. ANGILERI: Yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. And then in Claim 8, you pointed this
`out in your petition, Column 8 around Line 37. About the isolation
`circuit.
`We're isolating the heating circuit from the isolation circuit.
`MR. ANGILERI: Sure.
`JUDGE JUNG: You presented arguments for both the claim as
`written and the claim as you believe as it was intended, is that correct?
`MR. ANGILERI: Yes.
`JUDGE JUNG: And under your first, with the claim as written,
`was the intention, your argument is that it's still would have been
`obvious under Nix, or Kincaid combined with Nix?
`MR. ANGILERI: Yes. As we presented.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. And turning to your proposed
`interpretations in the petition, your proposed interpretations for a
`“common mode choke,” “occupant detection,” and “excitation
`signal,” Patent Owner presented arguments against your
`interpretations. And then in your reply you dropped a footnote to say,
`that you would no longer re-argue these interpretations.
`Is it correct to say that you believe, in the way the trial has
`developed, an express interpretation of those claims, or those claim
`terms, is no longer necessary to resolve the party's disputes?
`MR. ANGILERI: Yes. I think it's, yes, it's not necessary.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. And then one last question. If we
`accepted the Patent Owner's proposed interpretation for “occupant,”
`“occupant presence,” “configured for,” and “effective for,” I believe
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`your arguments are setup so that they would not be impacted by the
`proposed interpretation, for example, for “configured for,” is that
`correct?
`MR. ANGILERI: Yes.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. All right. I have additional questions
`about your challenges, but you may start with your presentation.
`MR. ANGILERI: Sure. And just to elaborate on your last
`point, Your Honor, we believe that Nix is in fact configured to detect
`an occupant and therefore that's why they're configured for limitation.
`The “configured for” construction doesn't impact the outcome
`of this IPR.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay.
`MR. ANGILERI: It's configured to detect, in certain
`circumstances, and the claim doesn't have any limitation on time.
`In other words, it doesn't require that it be configured to detect
`at all times. In fact, just to elaborate on this point since we're here,
`their device wouldn't detect an occupant at all times, for example, it
`presumably wouldn't detect an occupant if the vehicle is turned off.
`So, the entire nature of these -- so, the most important thing
`though is that the claims simply don't require any kind of temporal
`limitation in terms of mandating when there's occupant detection and
`when there's not. That's really clearest from the claim language itself,
`which is on Slide 2, and where the occupant detection circuit is
`described generally without any kind of specifics on when it must
`detect an occupant.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay.
`MR. ANGILERI: Turning to Slide 2 we have the Claim 1, and
`as we point out, there are two disputed limitations. One is the
`occupant detection circuit, the other is the isolation circuit.
`The occupant detection circuit is described generally. The
`isolation circuit is described more specifically. And that was in fact
`the feature that got these claims allowed.
`Nonetheless in this IPR, the Patent Owner is relying heavily on
`arguments about how the occupant detection circuit actually detects
`an occupant. And none of those features are claimed. And that's one
`of the reasons that both grounds we believe should be successful.
`Slide 3 has the prosecution history that I referenced briefly in
`my last comment. It shows the fact that the claims were allowed
`when there was an amendment made to the isolation circuit. In
`particular, where the Patent Owner added a line which clarified the
`structure of the common mode choke. So, the focus for patentability
`was the isolation circuit.
`Claim, I'm sorry, Slide 4 is the flip side where you have express
`statements from the patent and Patent Owner's expert, to the effect
`that the particular characteristics of occupant detection are actually
`not claimed here and therefore that negates all of their arguments on
`the specifics of occupant detection.
`JUDGE JUNG: But you would you agree that their argument
`is, what you point to as the occupant detection system, is not really in
`fact a system configured to detect an occupant, correct?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`MR. ANGILERI: That is their argument. And it is in fact
`configured to detect an occupant. It's specifically configured. I can
`jump to Slide 10, for example.
`Here we go. The slide show is not, there we go, 10. I must
`have hit the wrong keys. Slide 10 has, for example, an excerpt from
`Nix where it talks about detecting the presence of a signal.
`We have a flow chart from Nix, which basically says, the first
`decision tree is, is there a control input selected and then if there is,
`then you can detect whether the occupant is present in the driver seat.
`Figure 3, which is reproduced below, is essentially a float, a
`state diagram, and it outlines basically whether, the fact that you
`detect whether a person is in the driver seat or passenger seat and the
`ramifications of that.
`So, Figure 3 of Nix shows that Nix is in fact specifically
`configured to detect the presence of an occupant, either in the
`passenger seat or the driver seat and the ramifications that come.
`The fact that that occupant detection is triggered by a different
`decision point is irrelevant to the question of whether it is in fact
`detecting an occupant. Again, the claims don't require that you detect
`an occupant at any particular time, they merely require, generically,
`an occupant detection system.
`JUDGE JUNG: Setting aside the claim language for a moment
`
`--
`
`
`
`MR. ANGILERI: Pardon?
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Just setting aside the claim language for a
`moment --
`MR. ANGILERI: Sure.
`JUDGE JUNG: -- why would one of ordinary skill in the art,
`understand this particular embodiment of Nix to be an occupant
`detection system or a circuit, in view of the fact that this requires
`separately an occupant detection sensor, right?
`MR. ANGILERI: Sure.
`JUDGE JUNG: So, it seems like if I was reading this --
`MR. ANGILERI: Sure.
`JUDGE JUNG: -- like the Patent Owner argues, the
`commonsense reading would be that the occupant detection sensor is
`the occupant detection circuit. And what you are pointing to is not,
`would not be understood by one of ordinary skilled in the art to be the
`occupant detection sensor.
`MR. ANGILERI: So, the answer to that is there are two
`different occupant detection sensors disclosed or two different
`occupant detection systems disclosed in Nix. And we rely on one
`obviously.
`But the fact that it discloses two doesn't negate the fact that as
`figure 3 shows, the system that we're relying on is in fact detecting
`occupants and therefore it is in fact an occupant detection system.
`And, Your Honor, I asked and answer that question with, since
`we're separating from the claim, but of course the claim defines that.
`And the claim, I can put the language up there, but I think, Your
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`Honor, and the Board is aware that the claim language for the
`occupant detection circuit is very generic and therefore it covers both
`occupant detection disclosures in Nix.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. So, I want to stick with the disclosure
`of Nix for a moment.
`MR. ANGILERI: Sure.
`JUDGE JUNG: Before I turn to the actual language of the
`claims.
`MR. ANGILERI: Sure.
`JUDGE JUNG: So, would you agree that one of ordinary skill
`in the art, they would not use the embodiment that you're relying on in
`Nix, for example, in the Patent Owner's argument, for a passenger side
`bag safety feature, right?
`MR. ANGILERI: Perhaps not. But that's --
`JUDGE JUNG: Given the choice of the occupant detection
`sensor, the embodiment you're relying on, one of ordinary skill would
`probably select the occupant detection sensor, is that correct?
`MR. ANGILERI: If you are trying to detect whether a person
`is occupied for, seat is occupied for the purpose of triggering an air
`bag, you might choose the other occupant detection sensor. But that's
`not claimed and it's therefore irrelevant to this patent.
`Again, this patent doesn't focus, by the claim language or the
`specification and their expert, this patent doesn't not, and I mean I'm
`talking about the ’194 patent --
`JUDGE JUNG: Right.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`MR. ANGILERI: -- doesn't not claim any particular occupant
`detection system. And, more equally importantly, it actually focuses
`on the isolation circuit.
`That is actually the purported novelty or invention in the ’194
`claims, and that is exactly what's disclosed in Nix. So they tried to
`claim what they thought was a novel isolation circuit but in fact it's
`old.
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. So, you would agree in principle that if
`the embodiment you're relying on is not understood to be a occupant
`detection circuit or sensor, then there's no teaching for the claimed
`recitation occupant detection circuit? In principle.
`MR. ANGILERI: As I understand your question, I agree. If
`your question is, if you assume it's not an occupant detection circuit
`than it's not an occupant detection circuit, of course, if that's the
`assumption.
`JUDGE JUNG: Right.
`MR. ANGILERI: But I, of course, disagree with the
`assumption.
`JUDGE JUNG: Right. Okay. All right, now, turning to the
`claim language.
`MR. ANGILERI: Sure.
`JUDGE JUNG: This is --
`MR. ANGILERI: May I put it back up?
`JUDGE JUNG: Oh, yes.
`MR. ANGILERI: I'm struggling here. Thanks.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. So, the “configured to” --
`MR. ANGILERI: Yes.
`JUDGE JUNG: -- will play a decisive role in the decision. All
`right. So, at what point does a circuit become “configured to,” to do
`something?
`For example, some of the things that the Patent Owner has
`brought up is, for example, the ignition. In a sense, by turning the key
`of the car you can infer that there is an occupant in the car turning the
`key to turn it on, right?
`MR. ANGILERI: No.
`JUDGE JUNG: Would you agree that's an occupant detection
`circuit?
`MR. ANGILERI: No, because you can turn on a car, in a
`classic vehicle you could reach in, turn on the key, there could be
`nobody in there.
`JUDGE JUNG: All right. So that's --
`MR. ANGILERI: I mean, you could say, I supposed that it's a
`very weak and unreliable option. I mean, 97 percent of the time or
`whatever, more, it does in fact imply the presence of an occupant.
`JUDGE JUNG: So what else would you need to turn that
`ignition into an occupant detection circuit?
`MR. ANGILERI: I guess it depends on how it's purposed. I
`mean, if you are, if you have a circuit in the car, let's say you're trying
`to decide, I don't know, it could be anything, decide whether to turn
`the CD on or something or turn the radio on, and you decide you're
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`only going to do it if somebody is there, and you, as a
`engineer/designer decide that for the purposes of whatever you're
`trying to do, you're good enough with the ignition switch being an
`occupant detection circuit.
`So it is, if that's your purpose, in other words, let's say that
`everything you care about is driven by whether the car is on or off.
`JUDGE JUNG: Right.
`MR. ANGILERI: So therefore, it is in fact a proxy for whether
`the vehicle is occupied for the purposes of whatever control system
`you're using. Then in that case it would function as an occupant
`detection circuit because that's what you're trying, that's what you care
`about.
`In other words, that's why the notion of Nix being an occupant
`detection circuit for its purposes and their commercial embodiment,
`which is what they're relying on. They're basically relying on a
`commercial embodiment that says, hey, when we make these sensors
`for vehicles, the purpose of them is to decide whether to turn the air
`bag on or off.
`And in the context, we need something that detects any time the
`vehicle is on. So the whole point is, whether something is an
`occupant detection circuit, especially the way these claims are written,
`which is very generally, at some level is a function of what the
`designer's purpose is in deciding whether there's an occupant present.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. So you agree that just mere operation,
`mere operation of the ignition key is not an occupant detection circuit,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`but somewhere along the line the designer had to have, in mind, that I
`need somehow to figure out there is an occupant inside the car to
`further allow some further downstream operation?
`MR. ANGILERI: So, an occupant -- merely turning an ignition
`circuit, in and of itself, in all cases, is not an occupant detection
`circuit. But it can be if the designer decides that the 99 percent
`reliability of that is good enough.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay.
`MR. ANGILERI: And none of that is part of this claim.
`Moreover, Nix goes further than that because Nix is specifically
`treating the occupant detection circuit that we rely on as an occupant
`detection circuit in the context of Figure 3 and the logic that it
`employees in terms of activating or deactivating certain vehicle
`functions based on --
`JUDGE JUNG: The argument is that it is specifically designed
`to or configured to detect an occupant because the designers intended
`to detect an occupant along the way?
`MR. ANGILERI: Absolutely.
`JUDGE JUNG: That was part of the thought process?
`MR. ANGILERI: It's specifically designed to do exactly what
`it, it's specifically designed to -- Nix's circuit is specifically designed
`to detect an occupant in certain circumstances. Their commercial
`embodiment is designed, specifically designed to detect an occupant
`in certain circumstances. Namely, presumably when the car is on.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`But those circumstances don't limit whether it's an occupant
`detection circuit, certainly as claimed. They just define them. And
`we use two examples, I think.
`We talked about an SUV having an off-road mode. It's
`specifically designed for off-road even though some people may never
`use it where some park rangers may use it 99 percent of the time.
`Likewise, we used an example of I think a washing machine or
`a dishwasher that has sort of a sanitation cycle, some customers may
`never turn it on, other customers may want their whatever, their
`clothes or their dishes sanitized so they turn it on every single time. It
`is specifically designed to perform that function, independent of how
`often that function is used.
`JUDGE JUNG: All right. So I'd like to move onto a different
`point about Nix --
`MR. ANGILERI: Sure.
`JUDGE JUNG: -- if you're finished with your presentation
`regarding the occupant detection circuit.
`MR. ANGILERI: I think we've covered the key points, Your
`Honor --
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay.
`MR. ANGILERI: -- I'm not going to belabor it.
`JUDGE JUNG: All right. So according to your, Petitioner's
`argument, the common mode choke of Nix provides this isolation
`circuit.
`MR. ANGILERI: It does.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Patent Owner asserts that the common mode
`choke of Nix provides noise suppression.
`MR. ANGILERI: Provides? I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
`JUDGE JUNG: Provides noise suppression.
`MR. ANGILERI: Yes.
`JUDGE JUNG: Could those two things be reconciled at all?
`MR. ANGILERI: Absolutely. A common mode choke chokes
`whatever signal you're trying to choke. So a common mode choke, by
`definition, takes signals that are common mode, meaning they're in the
`same --
`JUDGE JUNG: Right.
`MR. ANGILERI: -- and then chokes them and blocks them.
`So you can choose to choke noise, or in the case of the ’194
`patent and Nix, you can choose to choke an actual signal. Meaning,
`you are blocking the passenger detection signal from interacting with
`the heating circuit.
`So, a common mode choke doesn't know what it's choking, it's
`just choking whatever it’s choking. And so whether you call that a
`signal or noise, it's completely irrelevant to the structure and function
`of a common mode choke.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. And did you want to say anything else
`about the common mode choke of Nix before I turn to a different
`aspect?
`MR. ANGILERI: Just to make the point I guess, I'm going to
`jump to Slide 14. It is essentially the exact same circuit that's claimed
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`in the ’194 patent. And since that was essentially the feature that led
`to patentability, that's why Nix invalidates this patent.
`JUDGE JUNG: All right. Now I want to discuss the Patent
`Owner's argument about measuring impedance.
`MR. ANGILERI: Sure.
`JUDGE JUNG: So, in your reply you explain how Nix also
`measures impedance. Can you --
`MR. ANGILERI: Sure.
`PTAB AIDE: Judge Jung?
`JUDGE JUNG: Yes.
`PTAB AIDE: Sorry to interrupt, but I think we lost Judge
`Mayberry.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. All right, we'll take a brief recess here.
`(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at
`10:22 a.m. and resumed at 10:23 a.m.)
`JUDGE JUNG: All right. We'll go back on the record.
`MR. ANGILERI: You had a question, but I lost the thread
`
`now.
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Yes. I'll just repeat it.
`MR. ANGILERI: Yeah.
`JUDGE JUNG: All right. So, we just discussed the common
`mode choke of Nix.
`MR. ANGILERI: Yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Now I'd like to turn to a different aspect. But,
`before we turn to that different aspect, you said you wanted to say one
`more thing about the common mode choke. That was on slide 14.
`MR. ANGILERI: I think I was just pointing out that it's
`structured the same as -- the Nix and the -- the ’194 Patent is claiming
`the common mode choke structure, Nix has the identical structure.
`It functions in the exact same way as a result.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. And then now I want to turn to Patent
`Owner's arguments regarding the measurement of impedance.
`MR. ANGILERI: Yes.
`JUDGE JUNG: So you explained in the Petition -- in your
`reply that Nix also measures impedance.
`MR. ANGILERI: Yes.
`JUDGE JUNG: Can you elaborate here --
`MR. ANGILERI: Sure.
`JUDGE JUNG: To verify my understanding.
`MR. ANGILERI: We have two points of course. First is we
`believe the claim doesn't require measuring impedance.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay.
`MR. ANGILERI: But of course they've got the amendment so
`we're going to get there eventually. And I could go into the arguments
`of why it doesn't measure impedance, but I'm going to answer your
`question first.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`And that's slide 18. The bottom line is, Nix measures
`impedance the same way as the ’194 Patent in the prior art. And that's
`what our slide 18 covers.
`And what that comes down to is, in general, and in these
`references, people don't measure impedance per se, directly. What
`you do is you measure a signal that's indicative of impedance.
`And more specifically, you measure a change in that signal. So
`the seat -- the impedance, when you apply a signal to a seat heater,
`how that signal reacts will vary depending on whether that seat is
`occupied or not occupied, because the capacitance changes and
`therefore the impedance changes and therefore the signal changes.
`So you measure the change. Namely, you look at -- what it
`would look like if the seat was empty versus what it looks like when
`the seat's full.
`Where you see that change, and that tells you that the seat is
`occupied. So that's how you measure impedance. And that's -- what
`we have on slide 18, we quote our expert, their expert, basically
`talking about the fact that our expert Dr. Matheson says in the upper
`left, that everybody measures changes in impedance.
`Their expert, Mr. Andrews, talks about the fact that he
`measured the change in the signal represented impedance when he
`was doing this himself at TRW.
`And then the patent likewise talks about, we've got a Patent
`Owner response where we quote the patent and it talks about -- we
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`reference the patent rather, and it talks about the fact that it measures
`changes in the apparent electrical impedance.
`So, the bottom line is in the context of this patent, measuring
`impedance is -- includes measuring a signal that -- or measuring a
`change in the signal that represents impedance.
`The patent doesn't actually even disclose sort of calculating an
`impedance value. And if that's what they're -- if that's how they're
`reading this, it's not supported.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. Now I just want to focus in on the
`disclosure of Nix.
`MR. ANGILERI: Nix, yes.
`JUDGE JUNG: Versus the ’194 Patent.
`MR. ANGILERI: Yes.
`JUDGE JUNG: So with the ’194 Patent, you have the figures
`that show an impedance meter. In Nix you don't have a comparable or
`analogous impedance meter, do you?
`MR. ANGILERI: You have a signal. And you measure the
`signal. And that signal's a function of -- the answer to your question,
`Your Honor, I believe is no.
`There's not a meter that spits out an impedance value. But I
`don't think that's the only important thing either.
`JUDGE JUNG: Right. But do you agree that -- I guess your
`argument is, there's no express teaching of an impedance meter in
`Nix.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`But one would understand that the signal path from the signal
`generator all the way up to vehicle control 124 or 112, provides some
`indication of impedance.
`MR. ANGILERI: Yes. That's correct.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. That's all the questions I had on the
`challenge for Nix.
`MR. ANGILERI: Okay.
`JUDGE JUNG: Is there any other point you want to raise?
`MR. ANGILERI: I'm going to rely --
`JUDGE DEFRANCO: Hi, this is Judge DeFranco.
`MR. ANGILERI: Yes.
`JUDGE DEFRANCO: So, I'm just looking at Nix in column
`five. Or actually it's page five, it would be paragraph 51.
`At the very end there, it speaks to impedance, high impedance
`of the common mode injection choke. I'm just wondering if you could
`explain what the context is that Nix is talking about or describing in
`that passage?
`MR. ANGILERI: You asked about paragraph 51, you said,
`Your Honor?
`JUDGE DEFRANCO: Correct. Paragraph 51.
`MR. ANGILERI: All right.
`JUDGE DEFRANCO: It would be at -- on page 15 of your
`Exhibit 1006, which is Nix.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`MR. ANGILERI: Yes. So this talks about how you select the
`impedance of the common mode choke. Making it sufficiently high to
`basically block the signal from the signal generator.
`Which allows the seat heater mat to experience if you will, the
`entire signal. And therefore give you the maximum analytical range
`to test a change in impedance.
`If you didn't have that, then you'd have a much smaller range.
`You'd have the impedance on the left side of the circuit, around the
`heating circuit either impedance or a load that would drastically
`reduce the range of signal that you can sense across the seat heater.
`And therefore, you'd have limited ability to detect the change in
`the impedance that occurs when a person sits on top of that seat
`heater.
`JUDGE DEFRANCO: So, would a person skilled in the art
`interpret that as suggesting that the choke is choking its signal that's
`representative of impedance?
`MR. ANGILERI: The choke is choking the signal that is going
`to be used to measure the impedance caused by a person. It's choking
`-- that signal will change -- because of the choke, that signal will
`change more when a person sits in the seat.
`And a person skilled in the art would understand that that signal
`is one, representative of impedance. And two, is effectively
`amplified, or at least not reduced, because of the choke.
`The choke prevents that signal from being sort of absorbed by
`the heating circuit. And therefore, allows -- and therefore a person
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`skilled in the art would know that when a person sits there, you get --
`so Nix talks in the prior paragraph about the fact that these are
`capacitive.
`It's a capacitive interaction. Actually, that's in paragraph 30.
`Nix talks about the fact that when a person sits in the seat it's a
`capacitive interaction, and therefore the person changes the
`impedance of the circuit that the operating signal is experiencing.
`So those two paragraph, paragraph 30 and paragraph 51, tell a
`p
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
