Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 7
`Entered: March 23, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AUTOLIV ASP, INC.; NIHON PLAST CO., LTD.;
`NEATON AUTO PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING,INC.;
`TAKATA CORPORATION; TK HOLDINGSINC.;
`TOYODA GOSEI CO., LTD.; HYUNDAI MOBIS Co., LTD.;
`MOBIS ALABAMA,LLC; and MOBIS PARTS AMERICA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULARSCIENCES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-01794
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,and
`SCOTT C. MOORE,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 CFR. § 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 7
`Entered: March 23, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AUTOLIV ASP, INC.; NIHON PLAST CO., LTD.;
`NEATON AUTO PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING,INC.;
`TAKATA CORPORATION; TK HOLDINGSINC.;
`TOYODA GOSEI CO., LTD.; HYUNDAI MOBIS Co., LTD.;
`MOBIS ALABAMA,LLC; and MOBIS PARTS AMERICA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULARSCIENCES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-01794
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,and
`SCOTT C. MOORE,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 CFR. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01794
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.; Autoliv ASP,Inc.; Nihon Plast Co., Ltd.;
`Neaton Auto Products Manufacturing, Inc.; Takata Corporation;
`
`TK Holdings Inc.; Hyundai Mobis Co., Ltd.; Mobis Alabama, LLC; and
`Mobis Parts America, LLC (collectively, “Petitioner”! filed a Petition for
`inter partes review of claims 1-44 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`No. 9,043,093 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’093 patent’). Paper | (“Pet.”). Petitioner
`
`relies on the Declaration of Stephen W. Rouhana, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003) to
`support its positions. American Vehicular Sciences, LLC (“Patent Owner’)
`filed a Preliminary Response. Paper6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Patent Owner
`submits a Declaration of Michael Nranian P.E. (Ex. 2008) in support ofits
`
`positions.
`
`Wehaveauthority to determine whetherto institute inter partes
`review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration of
`
`the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained
`below, we determinethat the information presented showsa reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respectto all of the challenged
`
`claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, weinstitute trial as to
`
`claims 1-44 of the ’093 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that the ’093 patent is the subject of the following
`ongoing district court proceedings: Am. Vehicular Scis. LLC v. Hyundai
`Motor Co., No. 5:16-cv-11529-JEL-APP (E.D. Mich.); Am. VehicularScis.
`LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., No. 5:16-cv-11530-JEL-APP (E.D. Mich.); Am.
`
`| Petitioner identifies Toyoda Gosei North America Corp.; Autoliv, Inc.; and
`Mobis America, Inc. as additional real parties-in-interest. Pet. 1.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01794
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Vehicular Scis., LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 5:16-cv-11531-JEL-APP
`(E.D. Mich.); and Am. Vehicular Scis., LLC v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`No. 5:16-cv-11532-JEL-APP (E.D. Mich.). Paper 5, 2; Pet. 1-2. Petitioner
`also challenges claims 1-44 of the 093 patent in IPR2016-01790.
`
`B. The ’093 Patent
`
`The ’093 patentis titled “Single Side Curtain Airbag for Vehicles,”
`and wasfiled as U.S. application No. 11/930,330 on October 31, 2007.
`Ex. 1001, at [21], [22], [54]. The ’093 patentclaimspriority, via a chain of
`continuation-in-part and divisional applications, to U.S. application .
`No. 08/571,247 (“the ’247 application”), filed on December 12, 1995,
`
`Id. at [60].
`The ’093patent relates to an airbag system for a vehicle, in which
`“the airbag for the front and rear seats are combined,i.e., the airbag deploys
`along substantially the entire side of the vehicle alongside both the frontseat
`andthe rear seat.” Id. at 65:29-32. Accordingto the ’093 patent, this
`“results in significantly greater protection in side impacts when the windows
`are broken.” Jd. at 65:32—34. Further, the airbag system of the ’093 patent
`utilizes a single gas-providing system with only oneinflator to inflate the
`airbag. Id. at 187:3-6. The airbag alsoincludes a plurality of compartments
`in flow communication with each other. See, e.g., id. at 169:27-33. As
`described in the ’093 patent, the compartmentsallow the airbag to be formed
`of the desired shape, while minimizing stress concentrations, as well as the
`weight of the airbag.
`/d. at 81:14-19.
`
`2 As discussed in more detail supra (see Section II.A), the parties dispute the
`priority date to which the claimsofthe ’093 patentare entitled.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01794
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Ofthe challenged claims, claims 1, 22, 26, 29, 36-39, and 41-43 are
`
`independent. Claims 2—21 and 33-35 depend,directly or indirectly, from
`claim 1; claims 23-25 depend from claim 22; claims 27 and 28 depend from
`
`claim 26; claims 30-32 depend from claim 29; claim 40 depends from claim
`
`39; and claim 44 depends from claim 43. Claim 1 of the ’093 patent,
`
`reproducedbelow,is illustrative of the challenged claims.
`
`the airbag system
`
`1. An airbag system of a vehicle,
`comprising:
`two seating
`least
`a single airbag extending across at
`positions of a passenger compartment of a vehicle, the single
`airbag arranged to deploy into the passenger compartmentalong
`a lateral side of the vehicle and adjacent each ofthe at least two
`seating positions;
`a cover interposed between the single airbag and the
`passenger compartment
`to cover the single airbag prior to
`deployment;
`a single gas-providing system that has only one inflator
`that provides gas to inflate the single airbag and which is
`arranged apart from the single airbag; and
`a conduit leading from the single gas-providing system to
`provide gas to inflate the single airbag,
`the conduit being
`arranged to deliver the gas from the single gas-providing
`system into the single airbag;
`the at
`least
`two seating positions comprising a first
`seating position in a first seat row of seats of the vehicle and a
`second seating position in a second seat row of seats of the
`vehicle longitudinally displaced from the first seat row ofseats,
`alongthe lateral side of the vehicle;
`wherein the single airbag has a plurality of compartments
`for receiving the gas, and wherein the plurality of compartments
`are in flow communication with each other.
`
`Ex. 1001, 186:61—187:18.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01794
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`D. The Applied References and Evidence
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references in the asserted grounds.
`
`Pet. 5—6.
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`[Reference«Date|_| Exhibit No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,957,487 (“Stiitz”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,176,518 (“Faigle”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,222,761 (“Kaji”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,524,924 (“Steffens”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,269,561 (“Davis”)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,966,225 (“Marlow”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,507,890 (“Swann”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,021,058 (“Suzuki”)
`US. Appl. Pub. 2002/0180192
`Tanase
`U.S. Patent No. 5,845,935 (“Enders’’)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dec. 5, 2002
`Dec. 8, 1998
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner sets forth its challenges to claims 1-44 as follows. Pet. 7,
`
`32-85.
`
`[References|Basis__| Claims Challenged
`
`
`HAlandandStiitz
`1, 10, 17-20, 26, 27, 36-40
`kn
`HAland,Stiitz, and Faigle_|§ 103
`
`HAland and Daniel
`§ 103
`1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 17-20, 26, 27,
`
`
`
`
`5,7
`HAland,Stiitz, and Kaji
`mn
`
`HAland,Stiitz, and Steffens|§ 103
`— 1, 28-32, 41
`HAland,Stiitz, and Davis
`§ 103
`
`HAland, Stiitz, and Swann
`—
`Ww
`
`HAland,Stiitz, and Suzuki
`§ 103
`
`6 2
`
`N
`
`
`, 24, 25
`
`
`
`
`
`ww nNksSo
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[References|__|Basis_| Claims Challenged
`
`
`
`HAland,Stiitz, Suzuki, and
`§ 103
`33
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01794
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Marlow
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 103
`HAland and Tanase
`§ 103
`HAland, Tanase, and Kaji
`§ 103
`HAland,Stiitz, and Enders
`§ 103|42-44
`
`1, 10, 12-15, 17-20, 26, 27,
`33, 36-40
`34, 35
`
`
`
`I. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Effective Filing Date ofthe 093 Patent Claims andStatus of
`Asserted References as Prior Art
`Patent Owner argues that asserted references HAland,Stiitz, Faigle,
`Tanase, Daniel, Steffens, Swann, and Endersare notavailable as prior art to
`
`the claims of the 093 patent. Prelim. Resp. 18-25. This argumentis
`premised on Patent Owner’s contentionthat the claims of the °093 patentare
`entitled to the earliest filing date to which the ’093 patent claims priority—
`namely, the December12, 1995filing date of the ’247 application. See id. at
`25-46. Petitioner, on the other hand,asserts that the claims of the ’093
`patent are entitled to a priority date no earlier than October 27, 2004, the
`filing date of U.S. application No. 10/974,919 (“the °919 application”).
`Pet. 10-21. We note that, even if the claims of the ’093 patent are entitled to
`the December 12, 1995 filing date of the 247 application, Daniel, Steffens,
`and Swannare available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), because they
`were each filed prior to December 12, 1995. See Ex. 1011, at [22];
`Ex. 1013, at [22]; Ex. 1016, at [22]. Ifthe claims of the 093 patent are not
`entitled to the December 12, 1995 filing date ofthe "247 application, then
`HAland, Stiitz, and Enders are available as prior art thereto, because they
`wereeachfiled priorto the filing date of the next application in the priority
`~
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01794
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`chain (i.e., May 6, 1998). See Ex. 1001, at [60]; Ex. 1008, at [22]; Ex. 1009,
`
`at [22]; Ex. 1019, at [22]. Further, if the claims of the ’093 patent are
`
`entitled only to the October 27, 2004 filing date of the °919 application, as
`
`asserted by Petitioner, then Faigle and Tanasealso are availableas priorart
`thereto, because they werefiled and published prior to October27, 2004.3
`
`See Ex. 1010, at [22], [45]; Ex. 1018, at [22], [43].
`
`Onits face, the ’093 patent claimspriority, via a chain of
`
`continuation-in-part and divisional applications, back to December 12, 1995.
`
`Ex. 1001, at [60]. A graphical representation of the priority chain of
`
`the 093 patent, prepared by Petitioner (Pet. 10), is reproduced below for
`
`convenience.
`
`3 Patent Ownerhasnot, at this stage of the proceeding, addressed whether
`the claims of the ’093 patent are entitled to the filing date of any of the
`intervening applications, but focusesits discussion solely on the disclosure
`of the ’247 application.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01794
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Pat. 5,772,238
`App. 08/571.247
`Fited: 32/12/1995
`issued: 6/30/1998
`Efficient Airbag
`Module
`
`System
`
`Pat. 6,179,326
`App. 09/073,403
`Filed: 5/6/1998
`tssued: 1/30/2002
`Efficlent Airbag
`
`Alsbag for Vehicles
`
`‘ee’.
`
`cp
`
`Pat. 6,533,316
`App. 09/767,020
`Filed: 1/23/2001
`tssued: 3/18/2003
`Automotive Electronic
`
`Safety Network
`
`
`Pat. 6,733,036
`
`App. 09/925,062
`
`
`»
`Filed: 8/8/2001
`
`
`issued: 5/11/2004
`
`
`Automotive Electronic
`Sofety Network
`
`
`
`
` Pat. 6,905,135
`
`App. 10/043,557
`Filed: 1/11/2002
`Issued: 6/14/2005
`inflator System
`
`| cp
`
`¥ Pat, 7482AS3
`
`App. 11/131,623
`Fited: 5/18/2005
`tssued: 3/27/2009
`Inflator System
`
`Pat. 9,043,093
`App. 11/930,330
`Filed: 10/31/2007
`‘Issued: 5/26/2015
`Single Side Curtain
`
`The abovechart provides a graphical representation ofthe priority chain of
`
`the ’093 patent.
`For aclaim to beentitled to the priority date of an earlier application
`under 35 U.S.C. § 120, each application in the chain leading back to the
`earliest application must provide adequate written description support for
`that claim, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112. Zenon Envt'l, Inc. v. U.S. Filter
`Corp., 506 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also In re Hogan, 559 F.2d
`595, 609 (CCPA 1977)(“[T]here has to be a continuous chain of copending
`applications each of whichsatisfies the requirementsof § 112 with respect to
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01794
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`the subject matter presently claimed.”). In orderto satisfy the written
`description requirement, the disclosure of the earlier filed application must
`describe the later claimed invention “in sufficient detail that one skilled in
`
`the art can clearly concludethat the inventor invented the claimed invention
`as of the filing date sought.” Lockwoodv. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565,
`1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “While the earlier application need not describe the
`claimed subject matter in precisely the same termsas foundin the claimsat
`issue, the prior application must ‘convey with reasonable clarity to those
`skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, [the inventor] was in
`possessionof the invention.’” Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1316, 1331-32 (Fed. Cir. 2008)(internal citations omitted,
`
`emphasis removed).
`However,“[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject
`matter whichis not disclosed, but would be obvious over whatis expressly
`
`disclosed.” In re Huston, 308 F.3d 1267, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting
`Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571-72); see also Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d
`1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“For a claim in a later-filed application to be
`entitled to the filing date of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120
`(1994), the earlier application must comply with the written description
`requirement of 35 U.S.C.§ 112, § 1 (1994). ... A disclosure in a parent
`application that merely renders the later-claimed invention obviousis not
`sufficient to meet the written description requirement; the disclosure must
`describe the claimed invention with all its limitations.”(internal citations
`
`omitted)).
`Accordingto Petitioner, the earliest disclosure of certain limitations of
`the claims of the 093 patent is in the °919 application, which wasfiled on
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01794
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`October 27, 2004. Pet. 12-15, 18-21. In particular, Petitioner contends that
`
`the earlier applications(i.e., those highlighted in yellow in Petitioner’s
`
`graphical representation of the priority chain, reproduced above) do not
`contain written description support for the following limitations:
`
`(a) either “a single airbag extending across at least two seating
`positions of a passenger compartment of a vehicle” or
`“arranging the single airbag to extend acrossat least two seating
`positions of a passenger compartment of
`the vehicle,”
`(b) “wherein the single airbag has a plurality of compartments
`for
`receiving the gas,” and (c) “wherein the plurality of
`compartmentsare in flow communication with each other.”
`
`Id. at 12.
`
`Patent Ownerarguesthat each of these featuresis, in fact, supported
`
`in the ’247 application.’ Prelim. Resp. 26-43. Based on the record now
`before us, and for the reasons discussed below, weare persuaded for
`purposesofthis decision that the ’247 application does not provide sufficient
`
`4 Throughoutits Preliminary Response, Patent Ownercites to the disclosure
`of U.S. Patent No. 5,772,238 (“the ’238 patent”), which matured from
`the ’247 application. For purposes ofouranalysisat this stage of the
`proceeding, we presumethat the ’238 patent and the ’247 application
`contain the samedisclosure. We note, however, that to show entitlement to
`priority to the earlier applications, Patent Owner must show written
`description support for the claims in each application in the chain leading
`back to the earliest application. See Zenon Envt’l, 506 F.3d at 1378.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01794
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`written description support forat least the limitation “wherein the plurality
`of compartmentsare in flow communication with each other.”?
`Regardingthis “flow communication”limitation, Patent Owner
`asserts, with supporting testimony from Mr. Nranian,that “a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood in December of 1995 from
`reading the Specification of the ‘238 patent that the plurality of
`compartmentsofthe airbag are in flow communication with each other.”
`Prelim. Resp. 34 (citing Ex. 2008 J 71). In support of this assertion, Patent
`Ownerargues that the ’238 patent “does not disclosethat different
`compartments. . . are filled from different conduits from one or more
`inflators.” Jd. (citing Ex. 2008 § 71). According to Patent Owner,
`“la]lthough one compartmentof an airbag mayreceive gas directly from an
`inflator, the compartments that are not directly connected to the inflator must
`necessarily receive gas from another compartment.” Jd. (citing Ex. 2008
`
`{ 71) (emphasis added).
`This argument, however, is not supported by the express disclosure of
`the 238 patent. For example, nowhere in the ’238 patent is there an express
`disclosure of the compartments being in “flow communication.” Further, in
`discussing the preferred embodiments, the ’238 patent discloses that
`nozzle 115 delivering gas from tube 121 to airbag 110 is defined by
`“elongate U-shaped nozzle walls 160,” whichas seen in Figure 2F extend
`
`5 For purposes ofthis Decision we do not address whetherthe ’247
`application includes written description support for the other limitations
`identified by Petitioner—namely,“a single airbag extending acrossatleast
`two seating positions of a passenger compartment ofa vehicle”/“arranging
`the single airbag to extend acrossat least two seating positions of a
`passenger compartmentofthe vehicle,” and “wherein the single airbag has a
`plurality of compartments for receiving the gas.”
`
`ll
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01794
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`along,at least a significant portion of, the length of airbag 110. See
`Ex. 1004, 13:62-14:41, Fig. 2F; see also id. at 16:60—64 (“Referring now to
`FIG.2F,it can be seen that the nozzle walls 160 are solid and extendin the
`longitudinal direction of the tube 121. Similarly, spring shields 155 are
`connected to the walls 160 over substantially the entire length of the walls
`
`160.”). Contrary to Patent Owner’sassertion, the ’238 patent does not
`disclose any compartmentsthat receiveare receiving gas indirectly from an
`inflator, via other compartments,but instead, the disclosureat least suggests,
`that tube 121 directs gas to the entire airbag 110 along the length thereof.
`We,thus, are not persuaded, based on the record now beforeus,that
`the ’247 application provides written description support for “the plurality of
`compartments[being] in flow communication with each other.” See In re
`Huston, 308 F.3d at 1277 (“Entitlementto a filing date does not extend to
`subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over whatis
`
`expressly disclosed.”).
`Further, although Mr. Nraniantestifies that “a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would have understood in Decemberof 1995 from reading the
`Specification of the ‘238 patentthat the plurality of compartmentsof the
`airbag are in flow communication with each other” (Prelim. Resp. 34 (citing
`Ex. 2008 § 71)), Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Rouhanatestifies to the contrary
`that the ’238 patent does not teach that a plurality of compartmentsare in
`flow communication with each other(see, ¢.g., Ex. 1003 § 69). See
`
`37 C.E.R. § 108(c) (“The Board’s decision will take into account a patent
`ownerpreliminary response wheresucharesponseis filed, including any
`testimonial evidence, but a genuine issue of material fact created by such
`testimonial evidence will be viewed in the light most favorable to the
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01794
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whetherto institute an inter partes
`
`review.”).
`
`Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded based
`on the record now before us and for purposes ofthis Decision, that HAland,
`Stiitz, Faigle, Tanase, Daniel, Steffens, Swann, and Endersare each
`
`available as priorart to the claims of the ’093 patent.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`Petitioner indicates that the ’093 patent will expire during this
`proceeding. Pet. 21. Thus, according to Petitioner, the Phillips v. AWH
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) standard of
`claim construction should be applied to the claimsin this proceeding. Id.
`(citing In re CSB-System Int’l, Inc., 832 F.3d 1335, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(holding that the Phillips standard for claim construction should be used by
`the Board when a patent expires during a reexamination proceeding)).
`Patent Ownerdoesnot address the expiration of the patent, or the claim
`construction standard to be applied, but proposes construction for several
`terms under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. See Prelim.
`Resp. 14-18; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (providing that claim termsin
`an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in an
`inter partes review).
`Petitioner asserts that “{a]ll claim terms should be given their plain
`and ordinary meaningin light of the specification.” Pet. 22. Patent Owner
`proposes constructionsfor three claim terms: (1) “single airbag”;
`(2) “a single airbag extending acrossat least two seating positions of a
`passenger compartmentof a vehicle. .
`. the at least two seating positions
`comprising a first seating position inafirst seat row ofseats of the vehicle
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01794
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`and a secondseating position in a secondseat row of seats of the vehicle
`longitudinally displaced from thefirst seat row of seats”; and (3) “‘a plurality
`of compartments.” Prelim. Resp. 14-18. Upon review of the parties’
`contentions and supporting evidence, we determine noissue in this Decision
`requires express construction of any claim term. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v.
`Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms
`
`need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Accordingly, for purposesofthis
`
`Decision, we do not provide any express claim construction.
`Wedirect the parties to expressly address the expiration of the ’093
`patent, and the claim construction standard to be applied, in the subsequent
`briefing in this proceeding.
`
`C. Principles ofLaw
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)if the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obviousatthe time the
`invention was madeto a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved onthe basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and contentofthe priorart;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter andthepriorart,
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`In that regard, an obviousnessanalysis “need not seek outprecise
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01794
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`a court can take accountofthe inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; accord In re
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A primafacie
`
`case of obviousnessis established whenthepriorart, itself, would appear to
`
`have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person ofordinary skill in the
`
`art. See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976).
`
`Weanalyzethe asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`
`these principles.
`
`D. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have
`
`a degree inarelated field of science including physics, mechanical or
`electrical engineering, or equivalent coursework, andat least two years of
`experiencein the area of automotive safety systems with the equivalentof a
`post-graduate education, such as a master’s degree or equivalent knowledge
`obtained through work experience, and several years of experience in the
`design of vehicle occupantprotection systems.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003
`4 37). Patent Owner does not addressthe level of ordinary skill in the
`Preliminary Response, but Mr. Nranian testifies that such a person “would
`have at least a Bachelor’s degreein electrical, electronic, mechanical, or
`
`automotive engineering, and at least three years of experience in the
`integration of airbag, safety, and vehicle occupantprotection devices in
`automotive vehicles, or equivalent knowledge obtained through work
`
`experiencein the relevant field.” Ex. 2008 { 36.
`For purposesof this Decision, and based onthe parties’ proposed
`definitions and the record now before us, we adopt the following definition
`
`of one ofordinary skill in the art: a person having at least a Bachelor’s
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01794
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`degree in physics, or electrical, electronic, mechanical, or automotive
`engineering, or equivalent coursework, and having several years of
`experience in the design of vehicle occupant protection systemsin
`automotive vehicles, or equivalent knowledge obtained through work
`experience in the relevant field. The level of ordinary skill in the art further
`is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d
`1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed.Cir.
`1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`E. Asserted Obviousness in View ofHAland andStiitz
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 10, 17-20, 26, 27, and 36-40 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of HAland and
`Stiitz. Pet. 32-52. Petitioner further asserts that claims 2 and 3 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of HAland,Stiitz,
`and Faigle; that claims 5 and 7 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`obvious in view of HAland,Stiitz, and Kaji; that claim 9 is unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of HAland,Stiitz, and Steffens;
`that claims 11, 28-32, and 41 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`obvious in view of HAland,Stiitz, and Davis; that claim 16 is unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of HAland,Stiitz, and Swann;
`that claims 22, 24, and 25 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`obvious in view of HAland,Stiitz, and Suzuki; that claim 23 is unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of HAland,Stiitz, Suzuki, and
`Marlow;and that claim 21 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`obvious in view of HAland,Stiitz, and Enders. Id. at 52-54, 59-72, 81-82.
`Patent Owner arguesthat HAland,Stiitz, Faigle, Steffens, Swann, and
`Endersare notavailable aspriorart (Prelim. Resp. 20-25), which we have
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01794
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`addressed above. We have reviewedthe parties’ contentions and supporting
`
`evidence. Given the evidence onthis record, and for the reasons explained
`
`below, we determinethat the information presented showsa reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on these asserted grounds.
`1. Summary of HAland '
`HAlandrelatesto a “side impact androll over inflatable head
`protector,”or in other words a side curtain airbag for a vehicle. Ex. 1008, at
`[54]; Ex. 1003 § 83. Figure 6, which illustrates one embodiment of HAland,
`
`is reproduced below:
`
`Figure 6 showsa side viewofthe interior of a motorvehicle, including a
`safety device(i.e., an airbag) in accordance with the invention of HAland,
`whenthe safety deviceis in the operative state (i.e., when the airbagis
`inflated). Ex. 1008, 2:55-60. As seenin Figure6,the inflatable element
`“provide[s] protection not only for a person in the front scat of a motor
`vehicle . .. , but also for a person in the rear seat of the vehicle.” Jd. at
`
`5:47-51.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01794
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Gas generator 51 is connectedto inflatable element 49 via a conduit.
`Id. at 6:8-9; see id. at 3:25-26, 4:52—53; Ex. 1003
`84. Inflatable element
`
`49 is formed of“a plurality of parallel cells, which when inflated are
`substantially cylindrical.” Ex. 1008, 6:4-7. As described in HAland,“gasis
`initially supplied to the cells 52, 53,” then “[t]he rest of the cells 54 of the
`inflatable element are... inflated.” Jdat 6:14-15, 6:20-21. Onceinflated,
`
`“the inflatable element then extendsfully across the upper parts of the
`
`windowsin the doors 42, 43 of the motor vehicle.” Jd. at 6:21—23.
`
`Ascan further be seenin Figure 6, inflatable element 49 is secured to
`part of door frame 41 at its top edge 50. Jd. at 5:63-66. The inflatable
`element of HAlandincludes venting between adjacentcells thereof “to avoid
`any severe rebound”of a vehicle occupant’s head. Seeid. at 4:16-21. In
`this way, the inflatable element of HAlandallowsfor a “‘soft’ impact” ifa
`vehicle occupant’s head impacts the inflated element. Jd. at 4:21—27.
`Further according to the disclosure of HAland,the “weight ofthe
`fabric [forming the inflatable element] should be keptto be as low as
`possible, so that if the inflatable element should impact with the head of the
`person in the vehicle as the inflatable elementis inflated no harm will be
`
`done.” Jd. at 4:29-32.
`
`2. Summary of Stutz
`Stiitz relates to a “lateral impact protective device for a front and a
`rear vehicle occupant,” or in other wordsa side airbag for a vehicle.
`Ex. 1009, at [57]; Ex. 1003 4 86. Figure 1, which illustrates an embodiment
`
`of Stiitz, is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01794
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 showsa side elevation view of an embodimentof the protective
`device ofStiitz, in an inflated state. Ex. 1009, 2:38-40. As seen in Figure 1,
`head gas bag 10 is “designed to offer lateral impact protection both fora
`front occupant and also for a rear occupant.” Jd. at 2:52—55; see id. at 1:25-
`35. Atleast one end 12, 14 of head gas bag 10 includes gasinlet
`
`opening 16, for connection to gas generator 60, with a single gas generator
`shown in the embodimentof Figure 1.
`/d. at 3:15—-19.
`As describedin Stiitz, head gas bag 10 is arrangedin fitting sheath 22,
`
`as shownin Figure 2 (id. at 2:58-60), reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 2 showsa cross-section through a roof frame of a vehicle having an
`installed, folded up head gas bag 10.
`/d. at 2:41-42. Fitting sheath 22 may
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01794
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`be arranged behind cladding 32 (not shown), or attached to the external side
`of cladding 32 by screws 50 (as shownin Figure 2). Jd. at 2:60—-66.
`Whenthereis a lateral impact to the vehicle, gas flows into the
`
`interior of gas bag 10 from gas generator 60, as indicated by the arrowsin
`
`Figure 1. Jd. at 3:20-24. Uponinflation of head gas bag 10, the bag
`emergesfrom fitting sheath 22, and “spreads out toward the side window 24
`in a crash and movesinto a position between the occupant’s head and the
`
`vehicle.” Jd. at 3:7-9, 3:23-24. If gas bag 10 is arranged undercladding 32,
`
`cladding 32 will be ripped open. Jd. at 3:24—26.
`
`3. Claims 1, 10, 17-20, 26,27, and 36-40: Obviousness in view of
`HAland and Stitz
`
`Independentclaim 1 recites an “airbag system of a vehicle.” As
`discussed above, HAland andStiitz each disclose such an airbag system.
`
`See Pet. 22-24.
`
`Claim 1 further recites that the airbag system includes “a single airbag
`
`extending acrossat least two seating positions of a passenger compartment
`of a vehicle, the single airbag arranged to deploy into the passenger
`compartmentalonga lateral side of the vehicle and adjacenteachoftheat
`least two seating positions.” Further, the claimed “at least two seating
`positions” include “a first seating position in a first seat row ofseats of the
`vehicle and a secondseating position in a second seat row ofseats of the
`vehicle longitudinally displaced from thefirst seat row of seats, along the
`lateral side of the vehicle.” In other words,“the airbag for the front and rear
`
`seats are combined,i.e., the airbag deploys along substantially the entire side
`
`of the vehicle alongside both the front seat and therear seat.” Ex. 1001,
`
`65:29-32.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01794
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`According to Petitioner, both HAlandand Stiitz teach these claim
`features. See Pet. 32-34, 38; Ex. 1003 FJ 103-104. Petitioner asserts that
`“HAland teaches a single airbag extending across two seating positions that
`are longitudinally displaced alongalateral side of the vehicle.” Jd. at 32
`(citing Ex. 1008, 5:47—S1, Figs. 5, 6). Petitioner further asserts that
`“Stiitz ... also discloses the claimed single airbag extending across two
`seating positionsthat are longitudinally displaced along a lateral side of the
`vehicle.” Jd. at 33-34 (citing Ex. 1009, 1:25-32, 1:50-55, 2:52—55, Figs. 1,
`
`3).
`
`The airbag system of claim 1 further includes “a cover interposed
`betweenthe single airbag and the passenger compartmentto coverthe single
`airbag prior to deployment.” Petitioner asserts that, while “HAland does not
`explicitly teach a cover, .. . this feature is shown repeatedly in other prior
`art, including Stiitz.” Pet. 34; Ex. 1003 4] 105. Petitioner pointsto fitting
`sheath 22, shownin Figure 2 ofStiitz, as teaching a cover,as claimed.
`Pet. 34-35 (citing Ex. 1009, 1:67—2:9, 2:58-60, 2:62-3:14, Fig. 2); Ex. 1003
`{ 106. Petitioner asserts that “[c]overs were well known features of airbag
`systems,” and “[t]he advantages of having an airbag cover were well known
`and include protecting the airbag and providing a deploymentpath.” Pet. 51
`(citing Ex. 1003 § 147). Thus, according to Petitioner, a person of ordinary’
`skill in the art would have been motivated to add Stiitz’s cover to the airbag
`
`system of HAland. See id. at 52; Ex. 1003 { 147.
`Claim 1 furtherrecites “a single gas-providing system that has only
`oneinflator that provides gasto inflate the single airbag and which is
`arranged apart fro
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
