Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
` Entered: May 22, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`IEE SENSING, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
`JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION TO INSTITUTE
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
` Entered: May 22, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`IEE SENSING, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
`JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION TO INSTITUTE
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`IEE Sensing, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
`requesting institution of an inter partes review of claims 1–8 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,500,194 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’194 patent”). Delphi
`Technologies, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6,
`“Prelim. Resp.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be
`instituted “unless . . . 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 and Preliminary Response, and for
`the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least
`one of the challenged claims. As such, we institute an inter partes review of
`claims 1–8 of the ’194 patent as challenged in the Petition.
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`II.
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that there are no related judicial or administrative
`proceedings. Pet. iii; Paper 5, 2.
`B. The ’194 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’194 patent issued August 6, 2013, from an application filed
`October 20, 2010, and claims priority to a provisional application filed
`November 20, 2009. Ex. 1001, [22], [45], [60], 1:8–11.
`The ’194 patent relates to “seat assemblies using seat heating elements
`for both seat heating and occupant detection wherein the occupant detection
`circuit is electrically isolated from the seat heating circuit during occupant
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`sensing.” Ex. 1001, 1:17–21. According to the ’194 patent, “[o]ccupant
`detection systems using a heating element for both seat heating and occupant
`detection are known.” Id. at 1:25–26.
`In one embodiment of the ’194 patent, a seat assembly has a seat
`cushion providing a seat surface, and heating element 14 is adjacent the
`seating surface. Id. at 3:6–12. Figure 3 of the ’194 patent is reproduced
`below.
`
`Figure 3 is a “block diagram of an occupant detection/seat heating
`system.” Id. at 2:66–67. Occupant detection circuit 28 detects an object or
`occupant by measuring the field impedance of heating element 14. Id. at
`3:62–64. Heating circuit 38 applies heating current to heating element 14
`when switches 44, 54 are closed. Id. at 3:51–55. Isolation circuit 68 is
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`interposed between heating circuit 38 and heating element 14. Id. at
`3:38–39.
`Isolation circuit 68 is configured to prevent heating circuit 38 from
`influencing occupant detection circuit 28. Id. at 4:29–31. As used in the
`’194 patent,
`influencing the occupant detection circuit 28 means that the
`electrical load or impedance of the heating circuit 38 does not
`combine with the electric impedance of the heating element 14
`in a way that would influence the detection of an occupant by the
`occupant detection circuit 28 by, for example, changing the
`apparent electric impedance of the heating element 14 measured
`by the occupant detection circuit 28.
`Id. at 4:31–36. In isolation circuit 68, “[s]teady current flows through a first
`inductor L1 and a second inductor L2, where L1 and L2 are inductively
`coupled . . . forming a common mode choke T1.” Id. at 3:55–58.
`C. Illustrative Claim
`The ’194 patent has 8 claims, all of which Petitioner challenges.
`Claims 1, 4, and 8 are independent, and claim 1 is reproduced below.
`1. An occupant detection system, comprising:
`a seat assembly comprising a seat cushion having a seating
`surface;
`a heating element adjacent the seating surface, said heating
`element formed of electrically conductive material;
`a heating circuit electrically coupled to the heating
`element, said heating circuit configured to supply an electrical
`current to the heating element effective to generate heat by the
`heating element;
`an occupant detection circuit electrically coupled to the
`heating element, said occupant detection circuit configured to
`detect an occupant presence near the heating element; and
`an isolation circuit interposed between the heating circuit
`and the heating element, said isolation circuit configured to
`prevent the heating circuit from influencing the occupant
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`detection circuit, said isolation circuit comprising a common
`mode choke, wherein the common mode choke comprises a first
`inductor inductively coupled to a second inductor such that
`current in the first in inductor induces current in the second
`inductor, wherein the common mode choke is characterized as a
`four terminal device.
`Ex. 1001, 7:2–24.
`D. Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner challenges, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, claims 1–8 as
`unpatentable over (1) Nix1 alone, or (2) Kincaid2 in view of Nix. Pet. 2. In
`further support of its proposed grounds, Petitioner relies on a Declaration of
`Thomas G. Matheson (Ex. 1003).
`Petitioner states that the “level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced
`by the references” and set forth in its declarant testimony. Pet. 2 (citing Ex.
`1003 ¶¶ 35–39). Patent Owner also proposes a level of ordinary skill with
`reference to its Declaration of Scott Andrews. Prelim. Resp. 7–8 (citing Ex.
`2002 ¶¶ 48–52). At this stage, we agree with Petitioner that the level of
`ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the references. See Pet. 2.
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016)
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard).
`
`
`1 US 2008/0186282 A1, published Aug. 7, 2008 (Ex. 1006)
`2 US 2009/0295199 A1, published Dec. 3, 2009 (Ex. 1007).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`Petitioner proposes interpretations for “common mode choke,”
`“occupant detection,” and “excitation signal.” Pet. 5–8. Patent Owner states
`that express interpretations for “common mode choke” and “excitation
`signal” are unnecessary at this stage of the proceeding because these terms
`are “not relevant to any of the current disputes.” Prelim. Resp. 10–11, 13.
`Patent Owner also contends that Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of
`“occupant detection” is improper. Id. at 11–12. Further, according to Patent
`Owner, the Specification expressly defines “influencing the occupant
`detection circuit.” Id. at 8–10 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:29–38).
`For the purposes of determining whether Petitioner demonstrates a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenges, we determine that no
`express interpretation is required for any claim term. Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing only
`those claim terms in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`the controversy).
`B. Challenge Based on Nix
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–8 are rendered obvious by Nix. Pet.
`2, 9–52.
`
`1. Nix (Ex. 1006)
`Nix provides a “system, apparatus, and method . . . for controlling
`equipment operable by a plurality of operators.” Ex. 1006 Abstract. Figure
`1 of Nix is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 shows a system of Nix “as applied to a seated equipment
`operator of a vehicle.” Id. ¶¶ 21, 30. The system includes signal generator
`108, operator 100 in seat 104, and equipment 120. Id. ¶¶ 12, 30. A signal
`from signal generator 108 is coupled capacitively with operator 100 via
`conductive surface 106 in seat 104, and the signal passes through path 102 to
`element 124 of equipment 120. Id. ¶¶ 12, 30, 31. Signal detector 116
`detects if a signal consistent with one from signal generator 108 is at element
`124 to control a function of equipment 120. Id. ¶¶ 12, 31, 33, 35, 36, 44.
`In another example, a “heated seat matt can be used for coupling the
`signal with the operator.” Id. ¶ 50. According to Nix, a heated seat matt has
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`low resistance and “may make it difficult to couple a sufficiently strong
`signal into the operator” and thus, can cause “relatively high currents” that
`may result in “undesirable losses,” may require expensive parts in signal
`generator 108, and “may cause electromagnetic interference problems with
`other electronic equipment.” Id. Figure 5 of Nix is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`Figure 5 shows “an example of a signal coupled with a seat heating
`matt.” Id. ¶ 25. Seat heating matt 510 includes resistive heating element
`512 wired to seat control module 500. Id. ¶ 51. Switches 502, 508 of seat
`control module 500 connect seat heating matt 510 to battery 504 and ground
`506. Id. “In order to use the seat heating matt 510 to couple the signal from
`a signal generator 518 into the operator, a common mode rejection choke
`514 is connected in series with the seat heating matt 510.” Id.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`2. Claims 1–8
`Petitioner contends that Nix teaches expressly most of the limitations
`of claim 1. Pet. 9–31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52–71; Ex. 1006 Abstract, ¶¶ 12,
`15, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 44, 50–52, Figs. 1–3, 5). According to Petitioner, one
`of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the recitations
`“wherein the common mode choke comprises a first inductor inductively
`coupled to a second inductor such that current in the first inductor induces
`current in the second inductor” and “wherein the common mode choke is
`characterized as a four terminal device” are descriptions of the basic
`configuration of a common mode choke. Id. at 31–35 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 41, 42, 72–77). Petitioner also argues that Nix teaches common mode
`choke 514 as a four terminal device. Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1006, Fig. 5).
`For independent claims 4 and 8, Petitioner refers to its arguments for
`claim 1. Id. at 43–46 (referring to arguments for claim 1, also citing Ex.
`1003 ¶¶ 50–77, 87–89), 49–52 (also citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50–77, 92–93).
`Petitioner assumes for its analysis that the recitation “said isolation circuit
`. . . for isolating the heating circuit from the isolation circuit” was intended
`to be “said isolation circuit . . . for isolating the heating circuit from the
`occupant detection circuit.” Id. at 51 n.3. Petitioner also states that if the
`claim was intended as drafted, then the limitation “merely describes obvious
`characteristics of a common mode choke.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 93 n.3).
`Petitioner also provides arguments for dependent claims 2, 3, and 5–7.
`Id. at 35–43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41, 42, 45, 79–86; Ex. 1004, 6–7; Ex. 1005,
`1–2; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 10, 12, 30, 31, 51, 52, Fig. 5), 46–49 (also citing Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 54–59, 79–86, 90, 91).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`Based on our review of the record as presently developed, Petitioner
`sufficiently demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its
`challenge of claims 1–8 as unpatentable over Nix.
`Patent Owner responds that Nix does not teach or suggest an
`“occupant detection circuit” or “occupant sensing circuit,” as required by
`independent claims 1, 4, or 8. Prelim. Resp. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:5–18,
`3:62–4:1; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 40, 78–83). Patent Owner argues that Nix is
`concerned with the presence of a signal, not detecting the presence of an
`occupant, and, “[a]s a putative occupant detection system and circuit,”
`creates false negatives or false positives, thus needing to describe separately
`an occupant detection system. Id. at 17–21 (citing Pet. 22–24; Ex. 1003 ¶ 47
`n.2; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 11–13, 15, 30, 33–41, 43, 44, 52, claims 25, 26; Ex. 2002
`¶¶ 63, 65, 79–82).
`However, as acknowledged by Patent Owner, “Nix accomplishes its
`objective . . . by utilizing the person’s body as part of its system.” See
`Prelim. Resp. 15. Therefore, on the present record, Petitioner sufficiently
`shows that Nix teaches an occupant detection circuit or occupant sensing
`circuit because Petitioner’s position is that, by detecting a signal from signal
`generator 108 through operator 100, Nix teaches detection of operator 100,
`an occupant, even an occupant that is not intended to operate the equipment.
`See Pet. 9–10, 17–24.
`Patent Owner also argues that Nix does not teach or suggest an
`“isolation circuit configured to prevent the heating circuit from influencing
`the occupant detection circuit,” as defined by the ’194 patent and recited by
`independent claims 1 and 4. Prelim. Resp. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1001,
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`3:62–4:50, 5:34–61; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 42–44). The Specification of the ’194
`patent states that:
`As used herein, influencing the occupant detection circuit 28
`means that the electrical load or impedance of the heating circuit
`38 does not combine with the electric impedance of the heating
`element 14 in a way that would influence the detection of an
`occupant by the occupant detection circuit 28 by, for example,
`changing the apparent electric impedance of the heating element
`14 measured by the occupant detection circuit 28.
`Ex. 1001, 4:31–38. Patent Owner contends that, after taking into
`consideration that express definition, claims 1 and 4 require the isolation
`circuit to prevent the electrical load or impedance of the heating circuit from
`combining with the electric impedance of the heating element in a way that
`would influence occupant detection. Prelim. Resp. 22. Patent Owner also
`contends that Nix does not teach or suggest measuring the impedance of a
`heating element. Id. at 23 (citing Pet. 22–24, 41; Ex. 1003 ¶ 82; Ex. 1006 ¶¶
`11, 13, 33–41; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 84–87), 25.
`At this stage of the proceeding, even if we accepted the definition in
`the Specification, Petitioner sufficiently shows that the common mode choke
`of Nix prevents the electrical load or impedance of the heating circuit
`(switches 502, 508) from combining with the electric impedance of the
`heating element (heating element 512). See Pet. 30 (arguing that the
`isolation circuit includes capacitor 516 and common mode choke 514); Ex.
`1006 ¶ 52 (“The signal generator 518 is connected to the seat heating matt
`510 through a capacitor 516 so that the signal generator 518 is not affected
`by the seat heating being on or off, and switches 502 and 508 being closed
`or open.”).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`Further, the purported definition in the Specification of the ’194
`patent states “for example, changing the apparent electric impedance of the
`heating element 14 measured by the occupant detection circuit 28.” Ex.
`1001, 4:36–38 (emphasis added). The asserted definition by using the
`qualifier “for example” appears to include other influences on the occupant
`detection circuit, not just a change in heating element impedance measured
`by the occupant detection circuit. The definition does not appear to exclude
`other measurements that the occupant detection circuit can make or require
`an occupant detection circuit to measure only the impedance of the heating
`element. Therefore, on the present record, even taking into account the
`Specification of the ’194 patent, claims 1 and 4 do not require measuring
`impedance to detect an occupant.
`Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner inconsistently maps
`elements of independent claims 1, 4, and 8 to Nix. Prelim. Resp. 24–28. In
`particular, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s mapping of “occupant
`detection circuit” or “occupant sensing circuit” does not show how such a
`circuit is “coupled to the heating element” because Petitioner’s asserted
`occupant detection or sensing circuit is connected to its asserted isolation
`circuit. Id. at 25 (citing Pet. 20–21; Ex. 1001, 2:15–16, 3:62–4:1; Ex. 1003
`¶ 63), 27. Patent Owner also contends that, in one part of the Petition,
`Petitioner’s occupant detection circuit includes capacitor 516, but, in another
`part of the Petition, Petitioner’s occupant detection circuitry does not include
`capacitor 516 but instead that component is included in Petitioner’s isolation
`circuit. Id. at 25–28 (citing Pet. 20–21, 28–29; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63, 70, 71).
`At this stage of the proceeding, we understand Petitioner to be arguing
`that its asserted occupant detection or sensing circuit is connected to its
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`asserted heating element via capacitor 516 and not directly coupled to its
`heating element. See Pet. 20 (“The signal generator 518 is electrically
`connected to the seat heating matt 510 (which includes the heating element
`512) through a capacitor 516.”) (“signal generator 518 . . . is shown to be
`electrically coupled to heating element 512 via capacitor 516”), 21
`(“electrical coupling of the occupant detection circuit to the heating element
`may be through a capacitor”). On the present record, the claims do not
`require direct coupling of the occupant detection or sensing circuit to a
`heating element or exclude coupling via another component, such as a
`capacitor.
`We also understand Petitioner’s position to be that capacitor 516 is
`part of its asserted isolation circuit. See id. at 28 (“Nix discloses a similar
`isolation circuit . . . which also includes a common mode rejection choke
`514 and a capacitor 516.”), 30 (“the isolation circuit (which includes
`capacitor 516 and common mode choke 514)”). Thus, based on our
`understanding, Petitioner sufficiently maps Nix to claims 1, 4, and 8.
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner insufficiently sets forth how
`Nix teaches an “isolation circuit configured to prevent the heating circuit
`from influencing the occupant detection circuit,” as recited by independent
`claims 1 and 4, because Petitioner argues that the asserted isolation circuit of
`Nix prevents the heating element, not the heating circuit, from influencing
`the occupant detection circuit. Prelim. Resp. 28–31 (citing Pet. 16–17, 29,
`30; Ex. 1001, 2:10–14, 2:18–22, 2:31–34, 2:49–52, 3:6–29, 3:36–39, 3:51–
`55, 4:8–16, 4:29–38, 5:41–45, 6:56–61, Fig. 3, claim 1; Ex. 1006, Fig. 5).
`At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner’s position that its asserted
`isolation circuit addresses low resistance of the heating circuit and allows its
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`signal generator 518 to operate at a low alternating current is sufficient for
`instituting review. See Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 69–71; Ex. 1006
`¶¶ 50–52); Ex. 1006 ¶ 52 (“The signal generator 518 is connected to the seat
`heating matt 510 through a capacitor 516 so that the signal generator 518 is
`not affected by . . . switches 502 and 508 being closed or open.”).
`Patent Owner also contends that Petitioner insufficiently argues that
`Nix teaches or suggests an “occupant detection system controller” that
`includes both an “occupant detection circuit” and an “isolation circuit,” as
`required by claim 4, because Petitioner relies its arguments for claim 1.
`Prelim. Resp. 31–33 (citing Pet. 43–46). Petitioner, however, cites to its
`declarant testimony. Pet. 46. Its declarant states, in relevant part, that “[t]he
`‘controller’ of claim 4 is formed by the combination of isolation circuit 68
`and occupant detection circuit 28.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 88. At this stage,
`Petitioner’s argument and evidence for claim 4 are sufficient.
`Patent Owner also responds that Nix is not analogous art because its
`field is “attributing the operation of equipment to an operator among
`multiple operators,” Nix suggests a separate occupant sensor, and Nix would
`not be reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Prelim.
`Resp. 33–36 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:25–2:4, 4:4–26, 4:29–59, 5:33–45, 6:3–21;
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 35; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 1–7, 50, 51; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 66–77).
`On the present record, we are satisfied that Nix is either in the same
`field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the problem which the inventors
`of the ’194 patent sought to solve. See, e.g., Ex. 1006 Abstract, ¶¶ 9 (“One
`or more of the following embodiments attributes equipment operation in a
`vehicle to a specific operator”), 12 (“the signal detector is configured to
`detect a signal passing from the signal generator, through . . . a user”), 50
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`(“When the seat heating is turned on the even lower resistance between the
`side of the seat heating matt connected to the battery and the vehicle battery,
`which itself has very low resistance, may also present additional
`challenges.”).
`Patent Owner further responds that “Petitioner does not identify any
`alleged differences or offer any rationale as to why a [person of ordinary
`skill in the art] would have been motivated to modify Nix to overcome any
`such alleged differences between Nix and the claimed invention.” Prelim.
`Resp. 37. We understand Petitioner to be arguing that Nix does not
`expressly disclose that common mode choke 514 comprises a first inductor
`inductively coupled to a second inductor so that current in the first inductor
`induces current in the second inductor, as required by the independent
`claims, but that these features of the claims would have been understood as
`part of a common mode choke. See Pet. 32. Thus, Petitioner provides an
`obviousness analysis sufficient for instituting review of the independent
`claims.
`C. Challenge Based on Nix and Kincaid
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–8 are rendered obvious by Kincaid
`in view of Nix. Pet. 2, 52–87.
`1. Kincaid (Ex. 1007)
`Kincaid relates to a “seat assembly comprising a seat heating element
`and an occupant detection circuit, wherein the occupant detection circuit is
`electrically isolated from the seat heating circuit during occupant sensing.”
`Ex. 1007 ¶ 2. Figure 3 of Kincaid is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 is a “block diagram of an occupant detection/seat heating
`system.” Id. ¶ 11. Kincaid’s Abstract states that:
`A seat assembly include[es] a seat cushion, a heating element, a
`heating circuit, a[n] occupant sensing circuit, and an isolation
`circuit. The seat cushion has a seating surface, the heating
`element is adjacent the seating surface and is formed of
`electrically conductive material. The heating circuit is coupled
`to the heating element for supplying electrical current to the
`heating element for generating heat. The occupant sensing
`circuit is also coupled to the heating element for sensing the
`presence of an occupant near the heating element. The isolation
`circuit is interposed between the heating circuit and the heating
`element for isolating the heating circuit from the occupant
`sensing circuit.
`
`
`2. Claims 1–8
`Petitioner contends that Kincaid teaches or suggests most of the
`limitations of claim 1. Pet. 53–60 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–106; Ex. 1007
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`Abstract, ¶¶ 11, Fig. 3, claim 1); see also id. at 83 (“Kincaid discloses the
`majority of the limitations of claims 1–8 but does not explicitly disclose the
`use of a common mode choke in the isolation circuit.”), 84 (comparing Figs.
`1–4 of Kincaid with Figs. 1–4 of the ’194 patent). Petitioner argues that
`“Nix also teaches an isolation circuit configured to prevent the heating
`circuit from influencing the occupant detection circuit” and thus, Nix teaches
`or suggests limitations related to the “common mode choke” of claim 1. Id.
`at 60–65 (citing Ex. 1002, 194; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41, 42, 67–71, 107–112; Ex.
`1004, 6; Ex. 1005, 1–2, Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 51, 52, Fig. 5).
`Petitioner provides arguments that Kincaid and Nix are in the same
`field and are concerned with the same problem. Id. at 85–86 (citing Ex.
`1001, 1:42–44, Fig. 3; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 129–134; Ex. 1006 Abstract, ¶¶ 12, 50,
`51, Fig. 5; Ex. 1007 Title, ¶¶ 2, 3, Fig. 3). Petitioner contends that, like the
`’194 patent, Nix uses a common mode choke as part of an isolation circuit
`“(1) to allow the heating circuit to power the seat heater and (2) to prevent
`the heating circuit from interfering with the occupant detection circuit by
`loading it with a low impedance path to ground or the battery.” Id. at 86
`(citing Ex. 1001, 4:22–26; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 129–134; Ex. 1006 ¶ 51). Petitioner,
`thus, contends that use of a common mode choke as a solution to the
`problem of the ’194 patent was known. Id. at 86–87 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 129–134).
`Petitioner asserts that a “person having ordinary skill in the art would
`have been motivated . . . to combine these disclosures from Nix with the
`disclosures of Kincaid to achieve the isolation and reduced interference
`sought after in the ’194 patent.” Id. at 65 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 109, 129–134);
`see also id. at 87 (“A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`motivated . . . to combine Kincaid and Nix to achieve the improved isolation
`and reduced interference sought after in the ’194 Patent.”).
`Petitioner also asserts that the combination “would merely involve
`substitution of Nix’s known isolation circuit using a common mode choke
`into Kincaid’s known seat assembly having seat heating and occupant
`detection” and “would be an obvious substitution of one type of isolation
`circuit with an improved isolation circuit that reduces interference.” Id. at
`65, 87 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 109, 129–134).
`For dependent claim 2, Petitioner states that “Kincaid . . . includes by
`reference U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2009/0267622, Hansen et al.” Pet.
`66 (citing Ex. 1008, “Hansen”); see also id. at 70 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 114–118; Ex. 1007 ¶ 3). Kincaid, at paragraph 3, states that “[f]or
`example, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/150,439, incorporated herein
`by reference, describes an occupant detector for a vehicle seat assembly that
`includes an occupant sensing circuit that measures the impedance of an
`electric field generated by applying an electric signal to the sensor in the
`seat.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 3. Petitioner argues that Hansen teaches or suggests the
`limitations of claim 2. Pet. 66–68 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 2, 4, 6), 70–71 (citing
`Ex. 1008 ¶ 4). Petitioner also cites Nix (Pet. 68–69 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 12,
`51, 52), 71 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–83, 114–118; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 50–52)) and
`Kincaid (Pet. 68 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 18)).
`Petitioner also provides arguments for dependent claim 3. Pet. 72
`(also citing Ex. 1006, Fig. 5); see also id. at 72–74 (discussing common
`mode choke of the ’194 patent) (citing Ex. 1001, 4:51–55, Fig. 5; Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 41–42, 119–121, 129–134; Ex. 1004, 6–7; Ex. 1005, 1–2; Ex. 1006, Fig.
`5).
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`For independent claim 4 and its dependent claim 5, Petitioner
`references its arguments for claim 1. Pet. 74–78 (also citing Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 95–112, 122–126). Petitioner also refers to its arguments for claims 2
`and 3 to assert that dependent claims 6 and 7 are unpatentable. Id. at 78–79
`(additionally citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 114–121, 125–126).
`For independent claim 8, Petitioner again refers to its arguments for
`claim 1. Pet. 80–83 (also citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–112, 127–128). Petitioner
`also assumes for its analysis that the recitation “said isolation circuit . . . for
`isolating the heating circuit from the isolation circuit” was intended to be
`“said isolation circuit . . . for isolating the heating circuit from the occupant
`detection circuit” and that if the claim was intended as drafted, then the
`limitation “merely describes obvious characteristics of a common mode
`choke.” Id. at 82 n.4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 93 n.3).
`Based on our review of the record developed so far, Petitioner
`sufficiently demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its
`challenge of claims 1–8 as unpatentable over Nix and Kincaid.
`Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s rationale for combining
`Kincaid and Nix is based on impermissible hindsight because it uses the
`Specification of the ’194 patent. Prelim. Resp. 38, 47–52 (citing Pet. 3–4,
`59–60, 65, 85; Ex. 1001, 1:25–67, 2:3–4, 4:29–38, 5:53–67, 6:35–39; Ex.
`1003 ¶¶ 105–106, 134; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 15, 18, 20, 21, 26; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 43–44,
`90–97), 52–54. Petitioner, however, cites also to paragraph 3 of Kincaid to
`argue that both Kincaid and the ’194 patent “are concerned with the problem
`of the seat heating circuit interfering with the occupant detection circuit.”
`See Pet. 85. We agree with Petitioner that Kincaid’s paragraph 3 also states
`that “[b]ecause of the sensitivity of the measurements required by the
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`occupant sensing circuit, it is necessary to isolate the heating current source
`from the heating element . . . to prevent interference with the occupant
`sensing circuit.” See id.; Ex. 1007 ¶ 3. At this stage, we are satisfied that
`Petitioner’s asserted rationale for combining Kincaid and Nix is supported
`by the references themselves.
`Patent Owner also responds that there is no motivation for Petitioner’s
`proposed modification. Prelim. Resp. 38, 52 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 95–98), 53
`n.4 (citing Pet. 85; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 130–131). On the present record, we are
`satisfied that Kincaid, not the ’194 patent, provides motivation for
`Petitioner’s proposed combination so as “to achieve [] isolation and reduced
`interference” (Pet. 65). See Ex. 1007 ¶ 3 (“Because of the sensitivity of the
`measurements required by the occupant sensing circuit, it is necessary to
`isolate the heating current source from the heating element . . . to prevent
`interference with the occupant sensing circuit.”).
`Patent Owner further responds that Nix is not analogous art. Prelim.
`Resp. 39–46 (citing Pet. 4, 84–85; Ex. 1001, 1:15–20, 1:25–2:8, 2:23–31,
`2:36–40, 3:36–4:59, 5:33–45, 6:3–21, Fig. 3, claims 1, 4, 8; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 35,
`131; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 1–7, 32–41, 50–51; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 47, 61, 69, 70, 71, 74–77).
`For the reasons discussed above, at this stage, we are satisfied that Nix is
`analogous art. See also, e.g., Ex. 1006 Abstract, ¶¶ 9 (“One or more of the
`following embodiments attributes equipment operation in a vehicle to a
`specific operator”), 12 (“the signal detector is configured to detect a signal
`passing from the signal generator, through . . . a user”), 50 (“When the seat
`heating is turned on the even lower resistance between the side of the seat
`heating matt connected to the battery and the vehicle battery, which itself
`has very low resistance, may also present additional challenges.”).
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00179
`Patent 8,500,194 B2
`
`
`D. Instituting Review of All Claims
`On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held that a final written
`decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) must decide the patentability of all claims
`challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, No. 16-969, 2018 WL
`1914661, at *10 (U.S. Apr. 24, 2018). After considering the evidence and
`arguments presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`determine that IEE Sensing, Inc. has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`success in proving that at least one of claims 1–8 of the ’194 patent is
`unpatentable.
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, because Petitioner has shown that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the
`challenged claims, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged
`claims on all presented challenges.
`
`At this stage of the proceeding, the Board has not made a final
`determination as to the patentability of any challenged claim or any
`underlying factual and legal issues.
`
`
`V. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review of claims 1–8 of the ’194 patent is instituted with respect to all
`grounds set fort
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
