PTAB

IPR2013-00382

Aisin Seiki Co Ltd v. American Vehicular Sciences LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Seat Load or Displacement Measuring System for Occupant Restraint System Control
  • Brief Description: The ’060 patent discloses a method and apparatus for controlling vehicle occupant restraint systems, such as airbags. The system uses various sensors to measure an occupant's weight and position, classifies the occupant based on this data, and controls the deployment of the restraint system according to the classification.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground I: Claims 1 and 4 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) by DE ’074.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: DE ’074 (German Patent DE 38 09 074 C2).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that DE ’074 discloses every element of independent claims 1 and 4. DE ’074 teaches a vehicle seat support structure with guide rails (track) and runners (support member) that slide relative to the rails. Force sensors are mounted on the runners to detect occupant weight and position. This information is used by a control circuit to classify the occupant's position (e.g., forward or normal) and control the deployment of a "collision protection cushion" (airbag) based on that classification.
    • Key Aspects: This ground asserted that the "runner 7" of DE ’074 directly corresponds to the claimed "support member" and is coupled to both the seat bottom and a slide mechanism, meeting the specific structural limitations added during prosecution of the ’060 patent.

Ground II: Claims 5-10 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over DE ’074 in view of JP ’929.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: DE ’074 (German Patent DE 38 09 074 C2) and JP ’929 (Japanese Utility Model Publication No. JP 3-19929 U).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Ground I to address dependent claims 5-10, which require the force measuring device to be a "strain gage transducer" or a plurality thereof. While DE ’074 discloses force sensors, it does not specify the type. Petitioner contended that JP ’929 remedies this by disclosing the use of multiple strain gauges bonded to a support structure member to determine the load on a vehicle seat.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the teachings because strain gauges were a well-known, conventional, precise, and inexpensive way to measure force at the time. A POSITA would have found it obvious to implement the generic force sensors of DE ’074 using the specific strain gauge technology taught in JP ’929 to achieve more accurate force measurements.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was a straightforward application of a conventional sensor type to a known system, and the ’060 patent itself refers to strain gauges as a "conventional" device, indicating success was predictable.

Ground V: Claims 1-4, 6, and 9 are obvious under §103(a) over JP ’662 in view of Steffens.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: JP ’662 (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP 9-150662 A) and Steffens (Patent 5,413,378).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that JP ’662 discloses the core mechanical structure of the claims, including a vehicle seat with a track and slide mechanism, a support member (bracket 5), and a strain gauge attached to the support member for measuring weight to control airbag deployment. However, JP ’662’s control is based only on weight. Steffens was introduced because it specifically addresses the inadequacy of weight-only systems and teaches using both occupant weight and position to create a more nuanced "occupant characterization" for controlling airbag deployment (e.g., adjusting venting pressure).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine JP ’662’s sensor-equipped seat with Steffens’s advanced classification logic to create a safer and more effective restraint system. Steffens provided the explicit reasoning for using both weight and position to avoid dangerous airbag deployments for certain occupant types or positions, directly motivating the modification of a simpler system like that in JP ’662.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved integrating known control logic (Steffens) with a compatible hardware setup (JP ’662), which would have been a predictable and successful endeavor for a POSITA.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional obviousness challenges based on various combinations of prior art. These included combining DE ’074 with Protze (Patent 4,285,545) for an alternative slide mechanism, combining JP ’662 with Schousek (Patent 5,474,327) or Mazur (Patent 5,454,591) for different classification systems (e.g., detecting rear-facing infant seats), and asserting anticipation and obviousness grounds based on Mehney (Patent 6,039,344), a reference that was of record but not applied by the Examiner during prosecution.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "slide mechanism": Petitioner argued that an inconsistency exists between the ’060 patent’s specification (where fixed tracks are called "slide mechanisms") and the claims (which recite a "slide mechanism configured to slide with respect to the track"). To resolve this, Petitioner proposed that "slide mechanism" should be construed broadly as any structure that slides with respect to the track and is coupled to the support member, a construction allegedly supported by the prior art.
  • "occupant classification system": As this term is not commonly used, Petitioner proposed its plain and ordinary meaning: "a systematic arrangement of occupants in groups or categories according to established criteria."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-10 of the ’060 patent as unpatentable.