Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 16
`Entered: March 28, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AUTOLIV ASP, INC.; NIHON PLAST CO., LTD.;
`NEATON AUTO PRODUCTS MANUFACTURINGINC.;
`TAKATA CORPORATION; TK HOLDINGS, INC.;
`TOYODA GOSEI CO., LTD.; HYUNDAI MOBIS CO., LTD.;
`MOBIS ALABAMA, LLC; and MOBIS PARTS AMERICA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`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 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 16
`Entered: March 28, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AUTOLIV ASP, INC.; NIHON PLAST CO., LTD.;
`NEATON AUTO PRODUCTS MANUFACTURINGINC.;
`TAKATA CORPORATION; TK HOLDINGS, INC.;
`TOYODA GOSEI CO., LTD.; HYUNDAI MOBIS CO., LTD.;
`MOBIS ALABAMA, LLC; and MOBIS PARTS AMERICA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-01790
`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 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`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 1 (“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. Paper 14 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Patent Owner
`
`submits a Declaration of Michael Nranian P.-E. (Ex. 2005) in support ofits
`
`positions.
`
`We have authority 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 respect to all of the challenged
`
`claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute trial as to
`
`claims 1-44 of the ’093 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Theparties indicate that the 093 patent is the subject of the following
`
`ongoingdistrict court proceedings: Am. Vehicular Scis. LLC v. Hyundai
`
`Motor Co., No. 5:16-cv-11529-JEL-APP (E.D. Mich.); Am. Vehicular Scis.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`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 MotorCo.,
`
`No. 5:16-cv-11532-JEL-APP (E.D. Mich.). Paper 5, 1-2; Pet. 1-2.
`
`Petitioner also challenges claims 1—44 of the ’093 patent in IPR2016-01794.
`
`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 patent claimspriority, via a chain of
`
`continuation-in-part and divisional applications, to U.S. application
`
`No. 08/571,247, filed on December 12, 1995. Jd. at [60].
`
`The ’093 patent relates to an airbag system for a vehicle, in which
`
`“the airbag for the front and rear seats are combined,1.e., the airbag deploys
`
`along substantially the entire side of the vehicle alongside both the front seat
`
`and the rear seat.” Id. at 65:29-32. According to the ’093 patent,this
`arrangement “results in significantly greater protection in side impacts when
`
`the windowsare 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. Jd. at 187:3-6. The airbag also includesa plurality of
`
`compartments in flow communication with each other. See, e.g., id. at
`
`169:27-33. As described in the ’093 patent, the compartments allow the
`
`airbag to be formed of the desired shape, while minimizingstress
`
`concentrations, as well as the weight of the airbag.
`
`/d. at 81:14-19.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 22, 26, 29, 36-39, and 41-43 are
`
`independent. Claims 2—21 and 33-35 depend,directly orindirectly, from
`
`claim 1; claims 23—25 depend from claim 22; claims 27 and 28 depend from
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`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,
`along the 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.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`D. The Applied References
`
`Petitionerrelies on the following references in the asserted grounds.
`
`
`
`Pet. 5-6.
`
`Date__| Exhibit No
`Reference
`U.S. Patent No. 3,897,961 (“Leising”)|Aug. 5, 1975_|Ex. 1005
`
`7 wd
`U.S. Patent No. 5,273,309 (“Lau”) Dec. 28, 1993|Ex. 1006
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,269,561 (“Davis’’) Dec. 14, 1993|Ex. 1007
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,540,459 (“Daniel”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,222,761 (“Kaji”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,524,924 (“Steffens”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,021,058 (“Suzuki”)
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,998,751 (“Paxton”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,966,225 (“Marlow”)|June 29,1976|Ex. 1013
`
`
`
`Dec. 31, 1996*|Ex. 1014
`U.S. Patent No. 5,588,672 (“Karlow”)
`
`
`
`
`? Petitioner asserts that Daniel is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 5.
`Daniel was filed on October 5, 1994 (Ex. 1008, at [22]), which is before
`December 12, 1995, the earliest claimed priority date for the claims of
`the °093 patent (see Ex. 1001, at [60], 1:7-21).
`3 Petitioner asserts that Steffens is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 5.
`Steffens was filed on November 15, 1993 (Ex. 1010, at [22]), which is
`before December 12, 1995, the earliest claimed priority date for the claims
`of the ’093 patent (see Ex. 1001, at [60], 1:7-21).
`* Petitioner asserts that Karlow is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 6.
`-_Karlow wasfiled on October 20, 1995 (Ex. 1014, at [22]), which is before
`December12, 1995, the earliest claimedpriority date for the claims of
`the ’093 patent (see Ex. 1001, at [60], 1:7—21).
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner sets forth its challenges to claims 1-44 as follows. Pet. 6-7,
`
`23-89.
`
`peteeee|ee|eeO;o;o;oroW711]Go]G
`
`§ 103
`mn
`
`Claims Challenged
`1, 6, 8, 10, 12, 17-21, 26,
`27, 33, 39, 43, 44
`2, 3, 11, 28-32,41
`4, 13-15
`5, 7, 34, 35
`9, 38, 40, 42, 44
`22, 24, 25
`
`Leising and Lau
`Leising, Lau, and Davis
`Leising, Lau, and Daniel
`Leising, Lau, and Kaji
`Leising, Lau, and Steffens
`Leising, Lau, and Suzuki
`Leising, Lau, and Paxton
`Leising, Lau, Suzuki, and Marlow|§ 103
`;
`1, 10, 17-21, 26, 27, 33,
`Karlow and Lau
`36, 37, 39, 43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Or|6Or[Or[cor|tOr
`
`
`
`
`§ 103
`
`;
`
`§ 103
`
`5,
`
`7, 34, 35
`,
`
`42,
`
`
`
`
`
`Karlow, Lau, and Suzuki
`§ 103
`Karlow, Lau, and Paxton
`
`Karlow, Lau, Suzuki, and Marlow|§ 10
`
`|
`
`
`
`Il. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`Petitioner indicates that the 093 patent will expire during this
`
`proceeding. Pet. 11. 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.
`
`Pet. 11 (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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`used by the Board when a patent expires during a reexamination
`proceeding)). Patent Owner doesnot address the expiration ofthe patent, or
`
`the claim construction standard to be applied, but proposes construction for
`
`several terms under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. See
`
`Prelim. Resp. 15—19; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (providing that claim
`
`terms in an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in an inter partes review).
`
`Petitioner asserts that “[a]]l claim terms should be given their plain
`
`and ordinary meaningin light of the specification.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner
`
`proposesconstructions for 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
`
`comprisingafirst seating position in a first seat row of seats of the vehicle
`
`and a second seating position in a second seat row ofseats of the vehicle
`
`longitudinally displaced from thefirst seat row of seats”; and (3) “a plurality
`
`of compartments.” Prelim. Resp. 15-19.
`
`Upon review ofthe parties’ contentions and supporting evidence, we
`
`determinenoissue 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.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`B. Principles ofLaw
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`
`betweenthe subject matter sought to be patented andthe prior art are such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obviousat the time the
`
`invention was made to 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 obviousnessis resolved on the 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 out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`
`a court can take accountof the 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 prima facie
`
`case of obviousnessis established whenthepriorart, itself, would appearto
`
`have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976).
`
`Weanalyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`
`these principles. We note that our analysis is guided also by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.108(c), whichstates that “[t]he Board’s decision will take into account
`
`a patent ownerpreliminary response where such a responseisfiled,
`
`including any testimonial evidence, but a genuine issue of material fact
`
`> At this stage ofthe proceeding,the parties have not directed our attention
`to any objective evidence of non-obviousness.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`created by such testimonial evidence will be viewedin the light most
`
`favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to
`
`institute an inter partes review.”
`
`C. Level ofOrdinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitionerasserts that a person of ordinary skillin the art “would have
`
`a degree in a related field of science including physics, mechanical or
`
`electrical engineering, or equivalent coursework,and at least two years of
`
`experiencein the area of automotive safety systems with the equivalent of 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 ofvehicle occupant protection systems.” Pet. 12; Ex. 1 003 ¥ 39.
`Patent Owner doesnot addressthe level of ordinary skill in the Preliminary
`
`Response, but Mr. Nraniantestifies that such a person “would haveat 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 occupant protection devices in automotive
`
`vehicles, or equivalent knowledge obtained through work experiencein the
`
`relevantfield.” Ex. 2005 § 36.
`
`For purposes of this Decision, and based on the parties’ proposed
`
`definitions and the record now before us, we adopt the following definition
`
`of one of ordinary skill in the art: a person having at least a Bachelor’s
`
`degree in physics,or electrical, electronic, mechanical, or automotive
`
`engineering, or equivalent coursework, and having several years of
`
`experiencein the design of vehicle occupant protection systems in
`
`automotive vehicles, or equivalent knowledge obtained through work
`
`experience in the relevant field. The level of ordinary skill in the art further
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`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).
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness in View of, At Least in Part, Leising and Lau
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 12, 17-21, 26, 27, 33, 39, 43,
`
`and 44 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of
`
`Leising and Lau. Pet. 23-44. Petitioner further asserts that claims 2, 3, 11,
`
`28-32, and 41 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view
`
`of Leising, Lau, and Davis; that claims 4 and 13-15 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Leising, Lau, and Daniel; that
`
`claims 5, 7, 34, and 35 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`
`in view of Leising, Lau, and Kaji; that claims 9, 38, 40, 42, and 44 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obviousin view of Leising, Lau,
`
`and Steffens; that claims 22, 24, and 25 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obviousin view of Leising, Lau, and Suzuki; that claim 16 is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Leising, Lau,
`
`and Paxton; and that claim 23 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`obvious in view of Leising, Lau, Suzuki, and Marlow. Id. at 44-66.
`
`Patent Ownerarguesthat the cited combination of Leising and Lau
`
`does not disclose all elements of the independent claims, and that Petitioner
`
`has not provided a sufficient reason to combine these references with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success. Prelim. Resp. 28-60. We have reviewed
`
`the 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.
`
`Lv
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`1. Summary
`
`of Leisin
`
`Leising relates to an “[i]nflatable restraint apparatus for automotive
`
`vehicle occupants including an inflatable torso bag structure” and
`
`“TijJnflatable side curtains .. . deployed from the roof.” Ex. 1005, at [57].
`
`Figure 2 of Leising is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 2, reproduced above,illustrates a plan view of a vehicle including a
`
`restraint system. Jd. at 2:46-50. The inflatable restraint apparatus of
`
`Leising includestorso restraining bag 43 and side curtain 41. Jd. at 1:33-38,
`
`3:32—33. Gas source 33 supplies gasto the inflatable restraints. Jd. at 3:24—
`
`25. Gas reservoir 35 is connected to conduit 37, which extends along the
`
`roof to housing area 39, whichis located in the roof over the front seat area.
`
`Id. at 3:27-31. Conduit 37 is connected to side curtain 41 and torso bag 43.
`
`Id. at 3:32-33.
`
`“The side curtains and inflated torso restraining bag may be
`
`interconnectedto facilitate positioning or filling of the inflated structures.”
`
`Id. at [57]; see id. at 4:19-23. When deployed,the side curtains extend
`
`1]
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`downwardly between the passenger and the door. Jd. at 4:40-41, 5:34—35.
`
`Prior to deployment,the restraint apparatusis “adapted to be conveniently
`
`and aesthetically stowed in the vehicular roofstructure.” Jd. at 5:36—39.
`
`Figure 8 of Leising is reproduced below.
`
`
` cts=SSwed-ma
`
`
`Figure 8, reproduced above,is an enlarged side elevation of a side curtain
`
`forming part of the restraint apparatus of Leising. Jd. at 2:62-63.
`
`A plurality of restraining webs 53 maintain side curtain 41 in a generally flat
`
`condition upon inflation. Id. at 3:43—46. Each web 53 includes a notch or
`
`recess 55 at upper and lower endsthereof. Jd. at 3:50—-51.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`2. Summary of Lau
`
`Laurelates to airbag assembly 30, which includesinflator 38, front
`
`seat air bag 40 andrear seat air bag 42. Ex. 1006, 2:12—15. Figure 1 of Lau
`
`is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1, reproduced above,is a side view of a vehicle showing front and
`
`rear seat air bags 40, 42 in the deployed condition. Jd. at 1:39-42. In the
`
`deployed positions, the “air bags extend between the seated occupants and
`
`the adjacent vehicle door.” Jd. at 2:32-34. Prior to deployment,“air
`
`bags 40 and 42 are rolled to a stored condition and respectively concealed
`
`behind break away doors 43 and 45 .. . which conceals the air bag from
`
`view.” Id. at 2:15—18.
`
`3. Claims 1, 6,8, 10, 12, 17-21, 26, 27, 33, 39, 43, and 44:
`
`Obviousness in view of Leising and Lau
`
`Petitioner’s Contentions Regarding Independent Claims 1, 26, 39, and 43
`
`Claim 1 recites an “airbag system of a vehicle.” As discussed above,
`
`Leising and Lau each disclose such an airbag system. See Pet. 12-16.
`
`Claim 1 further recites that the airbag system includes “a single airbag
`
`extending acrossat least two seating positions of a passenger compartment
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`of a vehicle, the single airbag arranged to deploy into the passenger
`
`compartmentalonga lateral side of the vehicle and adjacent each ofthe at
`
`least two seating positions.” Further, the claimed “at least two seating
`
`positions”include “a first seating position in a first seat row ofseats ofthe
`
`vehicle and a second seating 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 the rear seat.” Ex. 1001,
`
`65:29-32.
`
`Petitioner relies on the combination of Leising and Lau as teaching
`
`these claim features. See Pet. 23-29, 31. Petitioner asserts that “Leising
`
`relates to an inflatable side curtain airbag deployed from the roof of a
`
`vehicle.” Jd. at 12 (citing Ex. 1005, at [57]). In particular, side curtain 41 of
`
`Leising “is arranged to deploy from the roof into the passenger compartment
`
`along a lateral side of the vehicle.” Jd. at 23 (citing Ex. 1005, at [57], 3:38-
`
`48, 6:66-5:11, 5:36-39, Figs. 1-3). According to Petitioner, while
`
`“TLeising’s airbag does not explicitly extend across two longitudinally
`
`displaced seating positions alonga lateral side of the vehicle,” Leising does
`
`include “explicit disclosure of integrating multiple airbag portionsthat
`
`extend across multiple occupants to form a single airbag.” Id. at 24, 26
`
`(citing Ex. 1005, 4:19—23; Ex. 1003 ¢ 100). Leising teaches a second row of
`
`seats (i.e., the back seats) that are longitudinally displaced from the first row
`
`of seats (i.e., the front seats). Jd. at 31 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:19-21, Figs. 2, 3).
`
`Petitioner argues that “it would have been obviousto extend side
`
`curtain 41 [of] Leising to protect rear seat occupants” andthat “[a] side
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`airbag curtain extending from the front seat to the rear seat was known as
`
`early as 1965.” Jd. at 24 (citing Ex. 1003 4 87; Ex. 1017). Thus, according
`
`to Petitioner, “[e]xtending a single airbag across the passenger
`
`compartment .
`
`.
`
`. would have been a viable alternative design which
`
`[a person of ordinary skill in the art] would have found obviousto try,” and
`
`“such a design would have simply combinedprior art elements according to
`
`known methodsto yield predictable results.” Jd. at 25 (citing Ex. 1003
`
`4 105).
`
`Petitioner additionally points to the regulatory environment, which by
`
`1995 included newside impact regulations, as evidence that “it would have
`
`been obvious to extend Leising’s side curtain 41 to the rear seat for back seat
`occupant safety” and that the “extension could be made by elongating and
`enlarging Leising’s side curtain 41, its housing, and roof storage area along
`
`the entire length of the roof.” Jd. at 26; Ex. 1003 4 100.
`
`Petitioner further relies on Lau, for its express teaching of an airbag
`
`assembly that providesside airbag protection for both front and rear
`
`occupants. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003
`
`103); see Ex. 1006, Fig. 1. According
`
`to Petitioner, Leising and Lau are “[i]n the samefield (i.e., airbags in
`
`vehicles)” and “address the same problem (i.e., how to effectively provide
`
`side airbag protection during an accident).” Pet. 27; Ex. 1003 § 106.
`
`Petitioner, thus, asserts that “|i]t would have been obviousto [a person of
`
`skill in the art] to extend Leising’s side curtain 41 to protect occupants in the
`
`rear seat based on Lau.” Pet. 27; Ex. 1003 { 106.
`
`The airbag system of claim 1 further includes “a cover interposed
`
`betweenthe single airbag and the passenger compartment to coverthe single
`airbag prior to deployment.” Petitioner notes that “Leising discloses side
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`curtain 41 is stowed in the vehicular roof structure but does not expressly
`299
`
`disclose a ‘cover.’”
`
`Pet. 29. Petitioner asserts, however, that it would have
`
`been obvious to use break away doors as taught in Lau (see Ex. 1006, 2:14—
`
`17, Fig. 1), to store the airbag of Leising in an aesthetic manner. Pet. 29;
`
`Ex. 1003 § 111. According to Petitioner, “the break away doors would be
`
`placed in the roof area and would provide the expected result of allowing the
`
`side curtain of Leising to deploy when needed, while keeping the side
`
`curtain concealed from view before use.” Pet. 29; Ex. 1003 9 111.
`
`Claim 1 furtherrecites “a single gas-providing system that has only
`
`one inflator that providesgasto inflate the single airbag and whichis
`
`arranged apart from the single airbag.” Petitioner points to “single gas
`
`source 33, having oneinflator 35 .
`
`.
`
`. for supplying gas to side curtain 41,” as
`
`teaching this claim feature. Pet. 29-30 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:23—25, Figs. 2,
`
`3); Ex. 1003 9 112. According to Petitioner, “it was known to use a single
`
`energy source for two airbags and would have been desirable to achieve
`
`low-cost, small, and efficient cars.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1003 § 105;
`
`Ex. 1005, 3:23—31). Thus, according to Petitioner, “[e]xtending a single
`
`airbag across the passenger compartmentwith a single inflator would have
`
`been a viable alternative design which [a person ofordinary skill in the art]
`
`would have found obviousto try,” and “such a design would have simply
`
`combinedprior art elements according to known methodsto yield
`
`predictable results.” Jd. (citing Ex. 1003 4 105). Petitioner further notes that
`
`Lau discloses inflator 38 to generate inflation gas for both front occupant
`
`bag 40 and rear occupant bag 42. Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1006, 2:28-34).
`
`According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would realize a
`
`separate airbag with its owninflator is not needed for the rear seat because
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Leising and Lau both disclose using a single inflator for multiple airbag
`
`portions.” Id.; Ex. 1003 § 114.
`
`Regarding the claimed “conduit leading from the single gas-providing
`
`system to provide gasto inflate the single airbag, the conduit being arranged
`
`to deliver the gas from the single gas-providing system into the single
`
`airbag,” Petitioner points to tube 37 that extends from single gas reservoir 35
`
`to side curtain 41, and delivers gas thereto, as disclosing this claim feature.
`
`Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:28-33, Figs. 2, 3).
`
`Finally, claim 1 recites that “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.” Petitioner
`
`points to disclosure in Leising of the use of “restraining webs 53 to form a
`
`plurality of compartments, in a vertical direction,” as teaching this claim
`
`feature. Id. at 31-32 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:62—63, 3:1—2, 3:43-49,Figs. 8, 10,
`
`11); Ex. 1003 | 118. Petitioner further asserts that “restraining webs 53 do
`
`not extendthe entire length of side curtain 41,” and, thus, “the compartments
`
`in side curtain 41 are in flow communication.” Pet. 32—33 (citing Ex. 1005,
`
`3:37-42,Figs. 8, 10, 11; Ex. 1003 4 119).
`
`Regarding independentclaims 26, 39, and 43, Petitioner relies on
`
`similar arguments and evidence as presented with respect to claim 1. See
`
`Pet. 38-39, 41-43; Ex. 1003130-131, 136-139.
`
`Patent Owner’s Contentions Regarding the Independent Claims
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner arguesthat several
`
`limitations of the independent claims are missing from Petitioner’s proposed
`
`combination. See Prelim. Resp. 28-30, 57-60. Specifically, Patent Owner
`
`asserts that the cited combination does not teach or suggest “a single airbag
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790 —
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`extending across .
`
`.
`
`. a lateral side of the vehicle” across two passenger
`
`compartments; or “a plurality of compartments [with] flow communication.”
`
`Id. Patent Owneralso argues that Petitioner fails to show that it would have
`
`been obvious to modify Leising in view of Lau with any reasonable
`
`expectation of success. Jd. at 30-57. We address each of Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments in turn.
`
`“single airbag extending across .. . a lateral side ofthe vehicle”
`across two passenger compartments
`
`Patent Owner arguesthat the “combination of Leising and Lau would
`
`not have taught or suggested ‘a single airbag extending acrossa lateral side
`
`of the vehicle’ across two passenger compartments, as required by each of
`
`the challenged independent claims.” Prelim. Resp. 28. In this regard, Patent
`
`Ownerarguesthat Petitioner “admitted that ‘Leising’s airbag does not
`
`explicitly extend across two longitudinally displaced seating positions along
`
`a lateral side of the vehicle’” (id. (quoting Pet. 24)) and that “Lau teaches
`
`two separate air bags”(id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1006, 2:12-14)). Patent Owner
`
`continues, arguing that “Lau makes no mention ofa single air bag extending
`
`laterally across front and rear seating positions, let alone teach or explain
`
`howoneofordinary skill in the art would achieve such an air bag,” and that
`
`“the two air bags of Lau collectively do not extend across the area between
`
`the two rowsofseats(i.e., the B-pillar).” Jd. (citing Ex. 2005 {ff 44, 45,
`
`172-173).
`Patent Owner’s arguments focus on the referencesindividually,
`whereasPetitioner’s asserted groundis based upon the teachings of the
`
`combination. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (holding
`
`that nonobviousnesscannot be established by attacking references
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`individually where the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings
`
`of a combination of references). Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments,
`Petitioner doesnot rely on Lau for a teaching of a single airbag extending
`across two rowsofseats. Instead, as discussed above, Petitioner’s proposed
`
`combination relies on disclosure in Lau of airbag protection of both front
`
`and back seat passengers(rather than on Lau’s use of two airbagsto do so),
`
`as evidencethat one of skill in the art would havealso considered safety
`
`protection for rear seat occupants, and would have found it obviousto
`
`extend the side airbag of Leising in order to protect also passengers in the
`
`back seat. See, e.g., Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003 $j 103, 107). Further,
`
`Petitioner, relying on testimony from Dr. Rouhana, describes how such an
`
`extension of Leising’s airbag could be accomplished. See id. at 26-27
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 Jf 100-103). We have consideredPetitioner’s arguments
`
`and evidencein light of Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence presented
`
`in its Preliminary Response. On the record now before us, weare persuaded
`that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in
`
`demonstrating that it would have been obviousto extendthe side airbag of
`
`Leising in orderto protect also passengers in the back seat, based on the
`
`knowledgeof one of ordinary skill in the art and the teachings of Lau. Thus,
`
`weare persuaded that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of
`demonstrating that the combination of Leising and Lau teaches or suggests
`
`“single airbag extending across. .
`
`. a lateral side of the vehicle” across two
`
`passenger compartments, as claimed.
`
`“plurality ofcompartments [with]flow communication”
`
`Patent Ownerarguesthat the portions of Leising upon which
`
`Petitioner relies to showaplurality of compartments, “do not, in fact, show
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`more than one compartment.” Prelim. Resp. 58 (citing Ex. 1005,
`
`Figs. 8, 11). Rather, according to Patent Owner, “Leising explicitly states
`
`that the purpose ofthe restraining websis to maintain the side curtain in a
`
`flat condition uponinflation.” Jd. (citing Ex. 1005, 3:43-46). Patent Owner
`
`continues, arguing that
`
`Petitioners’ assertion that “Figure 11... is a sectional view
`showing the compartments of the side curtain 41,” is also
`wrong. Figure 11 is not a sectional view of the side curtain 41
`as alleged by Petitioners; it is instead a section view of only a
`fragment of the side curtain 41: “FIG. 11 is a fragmentary
`section taken through the mid portion of the curtain shown in
`FIG. 10” (Exhibit 1002, col. 3, ll. 1-2). That is, FIG 11 shows
`only the center portion of the side curtain containing the
`restraining webs. Accordingly, FIG.
`11 does not show a
`plurality of compartments in flow communication (id. at { 205).
`
`Id. at 59.
`
`Based on the record now before us, we do not find Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments persuasive. Figure 11 of Leising showsrestraining webs 53
`
`dividing side curtain 41 into several sections, or compartments. Further,
`
`regardless of the stated function of restraining webs 53, as can be seen in
`
`Figures 8-10 of Leising, restraining webs 53 include an “elongated notch or
`
`recess 55 at the upper and lower endsthereof,” through whichair will flow
`
`uponfilling of side curtain 41, thus allowing flow communication between
`
`the compartments. Ex. 1005, 3:50—53.
`
`Patent Owneralso presents arguments directed to the airbags of Lau
`
`(see Prelim. Resp. 59), however, Petitioner does not rely on Lau for teaching
`
`this disputed limitation.
`
`Wehave considered Petitioner’s arguments and evidencein light of
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence presented in its Preliminary
`
`2U
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01790
`Patent 9,043,093 B2
`
`Response. On the record now before us, we are persuadedthat Petitioner
`
`has shown a reasonablelikelihood of demonstrating that the combination of
`
`Leising and Lauteachesor suggests a “plurality of compartments [with]
`
`flow communication with each other,” as claimed.
`
`Reason to Combine and Reasonable Expectation ofSuccess
`
`Patent Ownerarguesthat Petitioner “fail[s] to provide any evidence ~
`whatsoever that combining the various portions of the references would
`
`achievethe particular structure of a single airbag extendinglaterally across
`
`two passen
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
