Hyundai Mobis Co., Ltd.v.Autoliv ASP, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 6, 2016

11528265 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2016)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 48
571-272-7822 Entered: January 6, 2016

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

HYUNDAI MOBIS CO., LTD. and MOBIS ALABAMA, L.L.C.,
Petitioners,

v.

AUTOLIV ASP, INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2
____________

Before JONI Y. CHANG, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Hyundai Mobis Co., Ltd. and Mobis Alabama, L.L.C. (collectively,
“Petitioner”) filed a corrected Petition requesting inter partes review of
claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–13, 15–22, 24–30, 32–37, 39, and 40 of U.S. Patent
No. 7,614,653 B2 (“the ’653 patent”). Paper 6 (“Pet.”). Autoliv ASP, Inc.
(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
We determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
prevail with respect to claims 1–3, 6, 20–22, 25–30, 33–37, and 40, but not
with respect to claims 5, 7–9, 11–13, 15–19, 24, 32, and 39. Pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 314, we authorized an inter partes review to be instituted, on
January 13, 2015, as to claims 1–3, 6, 20–22, 25–30, 33–37, and 40 of
the ’653 patent. Paper 12 (“Dec.”).
Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
Response (Paper 25, “PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent
Owner Response (Paper 31, “Reply”). An oral hearing was held on
August 12, 2015.1 A transcript of the hearing has been entered into the
record of this proceeding as Paper 46 (“Tr.”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c), and this Final Written
Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). For the reasons set forth
below, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of
the evidence that claims 1–3, 6, 20–22, 25–30, 33–37, and 40 of the ’653
patent are unpatentable.

1 The oral arguments for the instant proceeding and Case IPR2014-01005
were consolidated.
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

3
A. Related Matters
The ’653 patent was asserted in Autoliv ASP, Inc. v. Hyundai Mobis
Co., LTD, No. 2:13-cv-141-MHT (D. Ala.). Pet. 55.
B. The ’653 Patent
The ’653 patent describes an airbag protective system with closeable
vents and fixed vents. Ex. 1001, Abs., 1:44–54. The airbag system is said to
prevent injuries by providing a softer airbag deployment. Id. at 2:66–3:7.
According to the ’653 patent, the airbag responds to the vehicle occupant’s
position during deployment, and releases the inflating gas from the airbag
accordingly, to avoid excessive impact force from the airbag on the
occupant. Id.
Figure 1 of the ’653 patent is reproduced below.

IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

4
As shown in Figure 1 of the ’653 patent above, airbag cushion 101
includes closeable vents 150a-b and cords 170a-b. The airbag system has
diffuser 130, configured to create a pressure pocket and redirect the gas to
closeable vents 150a-b. Id. at 3:55–60.
Figures 2A–2C, reproduced below, illustrate an airbag deploying
where there is no obstruction from an out-of-position occupant.

As depicted in Figure 2A of the ’653 patent above, cord 170 is
attached to the inside of airbag 101 at base 119 of fold 118. Id. at 8:5–26.
Closeable vent 150 remains open at the early stage of deployment, as cord
170 is slack. Id. at 5:44–46. Figure 2B shows that, as airbag 101 continues
to deploy without obstruction, airbag 101 unfolds and cord 170 moves to a
tensioned condition, constricting the opening of closeable vent 150. Id. at
8:5–26. When airbag 101 becomes fully inflated, as shown in Figure 2C,
cord 170 is fully tensioned, closing closeable vent 150. Id.
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

5
Figure 4B of the ’653 patent, reproduced below, illustrates an airbag
deploying where there is an obstruction from an out-of-position occupant.

As depicted in Figure 4B of the ’653 patent above, if airbag 101
encounters out-of-position occupant 30 during deployment, the obstruction
causes cords 170a-b to remain slack so that closeable vents 150a-b continue
to be open throughout deployment, permitting the inflating gas to vent
rapidly through closeable vents 150a-b. Id. at 6:34–44. In this situation, the
airbag inflation is dampened and occupant 30 receives a softer deployment
impact. Id.
C. Illustrative Claim
As discussed above, we instituted the instant trial as to claims 1–3, 6,
20–22, 25–30, 33–37, and 40 of the ’653 patent. Of those, claims 1, 7, 11,
20, 28, and 35 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. An airbag module, comprising:
an inflatable airbag cushion having a cushion membrane;
a first closeable vent having a first vent aperture in the
cushion membrane of the inflatable airbag cushion;
a second closeable vent having a second vent aperture in
the cushion membrane of the inflatable airbag cushion; and
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

6
at least one cord anchored to the cushion membrane of
the inflatable airbag cushion and having a first vent portion and
a second vent portion,
wherein the first closeable portion and the second
closeable portion respectively engage the first closeable vent
and the second closeable vent in a configuration such that, upon
deployment of the inflatable airbag cushion with obstruction,
the cord does not fully extend and the first closeable vent and
the second closeable vent remain open, and upon deployment of
the inflatable airbag cushion without obstruction, the cord
extends and at least partially closes the first closeable vent and
the second closeable vent;
wherein the cord is anchored to the cushion membrane at
a region of the cushion membrane which is folded to have at
least one fold, and
wherein the fold is held in place by a releasable
temporary holding feature.
Ex. 1001, 10:2–26 (emphasis added).

D. Prior Art Relied Upon
Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
Pinsenschaum US 2004/0012179 A1 Jan. 22, 2004 (Ex. 1009)
Wolanin US 5,280,953 Jan. 25, 1994 (Ex. 1010)
Prescaro US 5,242,192 Sept. 7, 1993 (Ex. 1011)
Seymour US 5,772,239 June 30, 1998 (Ex. 1012)
Kriska US 5,494,314 Feb. 27, 1996 (Ex. 1016)
Inoue2 JP H05-85295 Apr. 6, 1993 (Ex. 1008)
Tajima JP 2003-137060 A May 14, 2003 (Ex. 1013)

2 Citations to Inoue and Tajima are to the certified English-language
translations submitted by Petitioner in Exhibits 1008 and 1013, respectively.
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

7
E. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
We instituted the instant trial based on the following grounds of
unpatentability (Dec. 42):
Claims Basis References
1–3, 6, 20–22, 25,
and 28–30 § 103(a) Inoue, Pinsenschaum, and Wolanin
26, 27, 33–37, and 40 § 103(a) Inoue, Pinsenschaum, Wolanin, and Tajima

II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
Speed Techs., LLC., 793 F.3d 1268, 1277–1279 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress
implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
enacting the AIA,”3 and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
regulation.”). Under this standard, claim terms generally are given their
ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.,
Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor may rebut that
presumption by providing a definition of the term in the specification with

3 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
(2011) (“AIA”).
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

8
reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations
are not to be read from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns,
988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
“a releasable temporary holding feature”
Claim 1 recites “wherein the cord is anchored to the cushion
membrane at a region of the cushion membrane which is folded to have at
least one fold,” and “wherein the fold is held in place by a releasable
temporary holding feature.” Ex. 1001, 10:22–26 (emphasis added).
Claim 6, which depends directly from claim 1, further recites “wherein the
releasable temporary holding feature is stitching.” Id. at 10:36–37
(emphasis added).
Although the parties agree that the claim element “a releasable
temporary holding feature” does not include the word “means,” the parties
dispute whether this claim element is a means-plus-function limitation and
falls within the purview of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.4 Pet. 5–6; PO Resp. 8–9.
Petitioner argues that the word “feature” does not impart any specific
structure, and none of the words modifying “feature” connotes any structure.
Pet. 5–6. Patent Owner disagrees, arguing that there is a presumption that a
claim element does not invoke § 112, ¶ 6, if the claim element, as here, does

4 Section 4(c) of the AIA re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(f). Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 296 (2011). Because the ’653
patent has a filing date before September 16, 2012 (effective date), we will
refer to the pre-AIA version of § 112.
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

9
not use the word “means.” PO Resp. 8–9. Patent Owner asserts that the
disputed claim element should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning,
in light of the Specification. Id.
In the Decision on Institution, we determined that the claim element
imparts sufficient structure so that the presumption against applying § 112,
¶ 6, was not overcome. Dec. 8–11. After we entered that Decision, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued Williamson v.
Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), overruling
cases5 that previously stated that the absence of the word “means” in a claim
element established a “strong” presumption that § 112, ¶ 6, does not apply.
Id. at 1348–49. In short, Williamson overruled the heightened presumption
standard. Id. at 1349 (“Henceforth, we will apply the presumption as we
have done prior to Lighting World, without requiring any heightened
evidentiary showing and expressly overrule the characterization of the
presumption as ‘strong.’”). Therefore, we conduct our claim construction
analysis here for this Final Written Decision in light of Williamson, without
applying the prior heightened presumption standard.
As stated by the Federal Circuit in Williamson, “[t]he standard is
whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in
the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Id.
In that regard, the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan is reflected by

5 See, e.g., Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Kappos, 697 F.3d 1367, 1373
(Fed. Cir. 2012); Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d
1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (stating that “the presumption flowing from the
absence of the term ‘means’ is a strong one that is not readily overcome”).
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

10
the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
Cir. 2001); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
Here, in light of the prior art before us, we observe that one with
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have appreciated
that “a releasable temporary holding feature” is a device with sufficient
structure for holding a fold of the airbag cushion in place during shipping,
handling, and storing, until the airbag is deployed and inflated. See, e.g.,
Ex. 1009 ¶ 56, Figs 4A, 4B. For example, Pinsenschaum discloses that a
pleat structure in the airbag vent cover is held in folded relation by
break-away seams, which may include stitching, adhesive bonding, or
welding. Id. According to Pinsenschaum, the strength of the break-away
seams is selected such that they will rupture upon the application of a
sufficient force when the airbag is deploying. Id. ¶¶ 56–58. As another
example, Seymour discloses a fabric airbag cover having tear tabs or a tear
seam to hold the folds of the airbag in place prior to deployment. Ex. 1012,
3:59–4:16, Figs. 5–6. The tear tabs and tear seam, which comprises a weak
stitch pattern of thin thread, are designed to be strong enough to retain the
folded airbag, but will pull apart and release the airbag when the airbag is
deploying. Id. Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
recognized that “a releasable temporary holding feature” is a name that
indicates a class of structures—e.g., break-away seams, stitching, tear tabs,
and a tear seam.
We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that none of the words
modifying “feature” connotes any structure (Pet. 5–6). We are cognizant
that the word “feature” is similar to the word “mechanism,” which standing
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

11
alone may connote no more structure than the term “means.” See Mass. Inst.
Of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding
that the generic term “mechanism” typically did not connote sufficient
structure). Nonetheless, the surrounding claim language may further define
the word “feature” to add sufficient structure to avoid a claim construction
under § 112, ¶ 6. See Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d
1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that § 112, ¶ 6, did not apply to the
claim limitation “detent mechanism” because “the noun ‘detent’ denotes a
type of device with a generally understood meaning in the mechanical
arts.”). A particular device defined in functional terms is not sufficient to
convert the claim element into a means-plus-function limitation because
many devices take their names from the functions they perform, such as
“filter,” “brake,” “clamp,” “screwdriver,” or “lock.” Id. Here, we find that
the term “holder”—which is equivalent to “holding feature”—is such a term.
See holder, THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE (4th ed. 2000) (available at http://www.thefreedictionary.com)
(“2. A device for holding: [for example,] a towel holder”).
In determining whether a claim element without using “means”
invokes § 112, ¶ 6, we also must “ask if the claim language, read in light of
the specification, recites sufficiently definite structure to avoid § 112, ¶ 6.”
Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) (citing Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc., 769 F.3d 1094, 1099
(Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, the Specification of the ’653 patent also uses the
language “a releasable temporary holding feature” to designate a class of
structures for holding a fold of an airbag cushion in place. See, e.g.,
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

12
Ex. 1001, 8:42–45. For instance, the Specification indicates a fold of the
airbag cushion is held initially by a tack stitch to prevent undesired closure
of the closeable vents during shipping or handling and to ensure that the
cords remain slack during initial deployment of the airbag. Id. at 8:5–10.
According to the Specification, other structures—fasteners, adhesives, clips,
knots, hook and loop fasteners, etc.—also may be used as a releasable
temporary holding feature for holding the folds of the airbag cushion in
place. Id. at 8:36–45. Thus, the Specification confirms that “a releasable
temporary holding feature” indicates a class of structures, and is not simply a
nonce word or a verbal construct that is used as a substitute for the term
“means for.”
The presumption against the application of § 112, ¶ 6, to a claim term
lacking the word “means” can be overcome “if the challenger demonstrates
that the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else
recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that
function.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349 (citing Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232
F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). For all the reasons stated above, we
determine that Petitioner has not made such a showing here with respect to
the claim term “a releasable temporary holding feature.” Rather, we
determine that this claim term, as used in the ’653 patent, reasonably imparts
sufficient structure so that the presumption against applying § 112, ¶ 6, is
not overcome. Consequently, we decline to adopt Petitioner’s claim
construction under § 112, ¶ 6, and we accord the term’s ordinary and
customary meaning as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the
art in light of the Specification.
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

13
B. Principles of Law
A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
(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).
C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention, we note that various factors may be considered, including “type of
problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems;
rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology;
and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc.,
57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v.
Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). We also are
mindful that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art
of record. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.
Although the parties agree that the educational level of active workers
in the relevant field is relatively high (e.g., at least a Bachelor of Science
degree in Mechanical Engineering or a related field), the parties dispute
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

14
whether the relevant field is limited to frontal airbag design and
development. See, e.g., PO Resp. 2; Reply 6–7; Ex. 1017 ¶ 15; Ex. 2015
¶ 22. For instance, Petitioner’s expert, Ms. Karen Balavich, submits that “a
person having ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’653 patent would
likely have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical
Engineering or a related field, and at least three (3) years of professional or
practical experience in the field of automotive safety technologies, including
inflatable airbags.” Ex. 1017 ¶ 15 (emphasis added). In contrast, Patent
Owner’s expert, Mr. Henk Helleman, testifies that “a person of ordinary skill
in the art of frontal airbag design and development at the time of the alleged
invention would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a relevant technical
field such as mechanical or aerospace engineering, and at least six years of
experience in the design, development, and testing of frontal airbags.”
Ex. 2015 ¶ 22 (emphases added).
As Petitioner notes, the claims of the ’653 patent are not limited to
frontal airbags. Reply 7; Ex. 1001, 10:2–14:6. The ’653 patent also is said
to be related generally to the field of automotive protective systems,
specifically inflatable airbags for automobiles. Ex. 1001, 1:7–9. The
Specification of the ’653 patent further states:
As those of skill in the art will appreciate, the principles of the
invention may be applied to and used with a variety of airbag
deployment systems including frontal driver and passenger
airbags, knee airbags, overhead airbags, curtain airbags, and
the like. Thus, the present invention is applicable to airbag
cushions of various shapes and sizes.
Id. at 2:54–60 (emphasis added).
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

15
Based on the written description of the ’653 patent, we determine that
the relevant field is not limited to frontal airbag design and development,
and that persons with ordinary skill in the art would not be only those who
had “at least six years of experience in the design, development, and testing
of frontal airbags,” as alleged by Patent Owner (PO Resp. 9–10; Ex. 2015
¶ 22).
D. Ms. Balavich’s Declaration
Patent Owner argues that Ms. Balavich’s Declaration (Ex. 1017)
should be accorded no weight because Ms. Balavich allegedly lacks a
sufficient understanding of the relevant physical properties of a deploying
frontal airbag, and her conclusions of obviousness are based on improper
hindsight reasoning. PO Resp. 9–23. Petitioner counters that Patent Owner
misapprehends the relationships among the prior art, the claims of the ’653
patent, and expert testimony. Reply 6–10. In particular, Petitioner notes
that a primary purpose of the expert’s testimony is to “help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue,” and the claimed
subject matter at issue here is not limited to frontal airbags. Id. (citing
Fed. R. Evid. 702(a)).
We determined that Patent Owner has not articulated a persuasive
reason for giving Ms. Balavich’s Declaration (Ex. 1017), as a whole, little or
no weight. We have reviewed Ms. Balavich’s testimony and
cross-examination testimony. Exs. 1017, 1034, 2008, 2016. Ms. Balavich’s
qualification and experience are sufficient to qualify her as an expert in the
pertinent field under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. See, e.g., Ex. 1017
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

16
¶¶ 4–12 (“I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical
Engineering . . . . I am a named inventor on seven (7) United States patents
for automotive airbag technology . . . . I have authored or co-authored five
(5) publications, including technical papers, articles, and conference papers
on automotive safety technologies.”). As we discuss above, the relevant
field is not limited to frontal airbags, as alleged by Patent Owner, but rather
is related generally to the field of automotive protective systems, specifically
inflatable airbags for automobiles, as described by the Specification of the
’653 patent. Ex. 1001, 1:7–9. Therefore, the relevant field as well as the
description in the ’653 patent are broad enough to encompass Ms.
Balavich’s qualifications. In addition, there is no requirement of a perfect
match between the expert’s experience and the relevant field. SEB S.A. v.
Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
As to whether Ms. Balavich’s conclusions of obviousness are based
on improper hindsight reasoning, we review her testimony with respect to
each disputed material fact individually in light of prior art and other
evidence in this entire record. We exercise our discretion to determine the
appropriate weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, including
expert opinion, based on the disclosure of the underlying facts or data upon
which that opinion is based.
For the reasons stated above, we decline to accord Ms. Balavich’s
Declaration, as a whole, little or no weight, as urged by Patent Owner.
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

17
E. Claims 1–3, 6, 20–22, 25, and 28–30—Obviousness Over Inoue,
Pinsenschaum, and Wolanin
Petitioner asserts that claims 1–3, 6, 20–22, 25, and 28–30 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Inoue in view of
Pinsenschaum and Wolanin. Pet. 11–48. Petitioner also proffers a
Declaration of Ms. Balavich to support its contentions. Ex. 1017.
Inoue (Ex. 1008)
Inoue discloses an airbag apparatus designed to protect an
out-of-position occupant from injuries caused by the deploying airbag and to
ensure the protective performance for normal situations. Ex. 1008, Abs.,
¶¶ 1, 7. Inoue’s airbag includes an outlet hole for venting the inflating gas
from the airbag during deployment. Id. ¶ 10. When an out-of-position
occupant collides with the airbag at an early stage of deployment, the outlet
hole remains open, venting out the inflating gas to reduce the impact force
on the occupant. Id. ¶¶ 12, 29.
Figures 1 and 2 of Inoue, reproduced below, illustrate a deployed
airbag, and a detailed view of the outlet hole, respectively.

IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

18
As shown in Figures 1 and 2 of Inoue above, outlet hole 2b having a
wide opening is formed as part of airbag 2. Ring-shaped drawstring
through-hole 2c is formed on the circumference of outlet hole 2b and on the
inner surface of airbag 2. Id. ¶ 19. Drawstring through-hole 2c can be
formed by either turning back the material forming airbag 2, or sewing on a
separate, long, bag-shaped item. Id.
Drawstring 4 is inserted inside drawstring through-hole 2c from one
end 2f. Id. ¶ 20. Drawstring 4 is anchored to airbag 2 at end 2g of
drawstring through-hole 2c. Id. End 2d of drawstring 4 is anchored at a
position towards the deployment direction side from outlet hole 2b inside
airbag 2. Id. The length of drawstring 4 is established so that drawstring 4
becomes taut when airbag 2 is deployed completely, constricting the opening
of outlet hole 2b. Id.
Pinsenschaum (Ex. 1009)
Pinsenschaum describes an airbag having a plurality of closeable or
actuated vents and tethering elements to control the airbag deployment based
upon size and position of the vehicle occupant. Ex. 1009 ¶ 1, Fig. 3A. The
vents are actuated selectively in conjunction with control of the inflated
profile of the airbag such that venting of the inflating gas from the airbag is
matched appropriately to the inflated profile characteristics of the airbag. Id.
Figure 3A of Pinsenschaum is reproduced below (green markings added).
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

19

As shown in annotated Figure 3A above, airbag 20 has two closeable
vents 62, straps 71, and tethering elements 30, which are anchored to the
interior of airbag 20 and connected to straps 71. Id. ¶¶ 31, 54–55.
Wolanin (Ex. 1010)
Wolanin discloses an airbag having a plurality of closeable vents and
tether wires to control the flow of inflating gas in response to displacement
of the airbag. Ex. 1010, Abs. Figures 4A and 4C of Wolanin, reproduced
below (with blue annotations added), illustrate a deploying airbag.

Out-of-position occupant Occupant in normal position
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

20
As illustrated in annotated Figure 4A above, when out-of-position
occupant 14 contacts airbag 18 before it fully deploys, tether wires 50 and
66 remain slack, permitting closeable vents 28 and 29 to remain open,
venting the inflating gas from airbag 18. Id. at 3:51–56. Annotated
Figure 4C above shows that, when occupant 14 is in a normal position and
does not contact airbag 18 until it fully inflated, tether wires 50 and 66
become tensioned and close off the vent openings completely. Id. at 3:65–
68.
Discussion
Independent claims 1, 20, and 28 recite “wherein the cord is anchored
to the cushion membrane at a region of the cushion membrane which is
folded to have at least one fold,” and “wherein the fold is held in place by a
releasable temporary holding feature.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 10:22–26
(emphasis added). Claims 6 and 20 further recites “wherein the releasable
temporary holding feature is stitching.” Id. at 10:36–37, 11:57–58
(emphasis added). Claims 25 and 28 recite “wherein the releasable
temporary holding feature prevents closure of the closeable vent during
shipping or handling and ensure that the cord remains slack during initial
deployment of the airbag module.” Id. at 12:1–4, 28–31 (emphasis added).
Petitioner asserts that the combination of Inoue, Pinsenschaum, and
Wolanin would render the aforementioned limitations obvious. Pet. 12, 25–
26, 37–38. Petitioner first points out that Figure 3(1) of Inoue illustrates that
an airbag folded along its sides. Id. at 25. Figures 3(1)–3(3) of Inoue are
reproduced below with a green circle added for emphasis.
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

21

Petitioner notes that Figure 3(1) of Inoue above shows drawstring 4 is
anchored to airbag 2 at region 2d that is folded. Id.; Ex. 1008 ¶ 20. Indeed,
as shown Figure 3(1), prior to deployment, airbag 2 is folded and held in
place by airbag case 1, which has covering body 1a. Ex. 1008 ¶ 17,
Fig. 3(1). Further, as shown by Figures 3(1)–3(3), airbag case 1 prevents
closure of outlet hole 2b and ensures that drawstring 4 remains slack during
initial deployment of airbag 2. Id. at ¶¶ 17–20, Figs. 3(1)–3(3). According
to Inoue, at the time of a vehicle collision, inflator 3 introduces a gas into
airbag 2, and covering body 1a will open when airbag 2 deploys. Id.
There is no dispute that the combination of Inoue, Pinsenschaum, and
Wolanin discloses the claim limitation—“wherein the cord is anchored to
the cushion membrane at a region of the cushion membrane which is folded
to have at least one fold”— as recited in claims 1, 20, and 28. The parties’
dispute mainly centers on whether the combination of prior art renders
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

22
obvious the “releasable temporary holding feature” limitations, as recited in
claims 1, 6, 20, 25, and 28. In that regard, Petitioner asserts that using a
break-away seam or tack stitch in an airbag apparatus—to hold a fold in
place prior to deployment—was well known in the art, as evidenced by
Pinsenschaum and Wolanin. Pet. at 25–26, 29–30; Ex. 1009 ¶ 56; Ex. 1010,
3:15–21. According to Petitioner, one with ordinary skill in the art would
have applied the break-away seam or tack stitch, in light of Pinsenschaum
and Wolanin, to the folds in Inoue’s airbag, for holding the folds in place
prior to deployment. Id. (citing Ex. 1017 ¶ 55).
Patent Owner counters that Petitioner provides no practical reason
why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated “to add a
fold held by tack stitching or any other releasable temporary holding feature
to an airbag” where the cord is anchored, as required by the claims. PO
Resp. 27–29 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 71–78). Patent Owner also alleges that
Petitioner submits “no reason how or why the addition of these temporary
releasable holding features will improve the performance of the airbag.” Id.
“A reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way of
technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is describing and
attempting to protect.” EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898,
907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (emphases in original). In an obviousness analysis, we
must consider the combination of references, as a whole, in light of the
general knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan. In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, Petitioner relies upon the combination of Inoue, Pinsenschaum,
and Wolanin to render obvious the aforementioned “releasable temporary
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

23
holding” claim limitations. Pet. 25–26, 37–40. Petitioner articulates that it
would have been obvious to apply the releasable stitching of Pinsenschaum
or Wolanin to the fold in Inoue’s airbag cushion, holding the fold in place
prior to deployment. Id.
As discussed above, Pinsenschaum discloses an airbag having a
plurality of closeable vents. Ex. 1009 ¶ 1. Pinsenschaum uses releasable
break-away seams to hold a fold in the vent cover, ensuring that the vents
remain open prior to full deployment. Id. ¶¶ 55–59. Figure 4A of
Pinsenschaum is reproduced below (highlights and marking added).

As shown in annotated Figure 4A of Pinsenschaum above, cover
element 63 is folded in pleat structure 67, which is held in place by
break-away seams 68, 68’. Id. ¶ 56. Pinsenschaum also describes that the
break-away seams 68, 68’ may be any suitable construction including
stitching, adhesive bonding, welding or the like. Id. The strength of the
break-away seams 68, 68’ is selected such that they will rupture upon the
application of a sufficient tensioning force pulling in the direction away
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

24
from the attachment location. Id. Although only a single fold is illustrated,
multiple fold pleat structures may be utilized. Id.
Wolanin also discloses an airbag having closeable vents and tether
wires, controlling the rate of the gas being released from the airbag, to
provide a soft deployment. Ex. 1010, Abstract. The vents are open initially
when the tether wires are slack and valve flap is folded in a stack of
accordion pleats. Id. at 3:6–21. Wolanin uses a tack stitch to hold the folds
in place so that the vents remain open. Id.
Upon review of Inoue, Pinsenschaum, and Wolanin, we are persuaded
that Petitioner has proffered sufficient evidence to support its contention that
the combination of these references renders obvious the aforementioned
“releasable temporary holding feature” limitations, as recited in claims 1, 6,
20, 25, and 28. We also have considered Patent Owner’s arguments and
supporting evidence, but find them to be unpersuasive.
In support of its arguments, Patent Owner directs attention to
Seymour (a prior art cited by Petitioner, Pet. 49–51) and a Declaration of
Mr. Helleman. PO Resp. 27–29 (citing Ex. 1012, 1:36–49; Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 71–
78). Neither Seymour nor Mr. Helleman’s testimony, however, supports
Patent Owner’s contentions that intend to undermine Petitioner’s evidence of
obviousness. In fact, Seymour confirms that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have found it obvious to use a releasable temporary holding feature to
hold the folds of an airbag in place before deployment.
For instance, Seymour discloses holding the folded airbag in place
with a fabric envelope that has tear tabs or a tear seam (both a releasable
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

25
temporary holding feature). Ex. 1012, 3:59–4:16. Figures 5 and 6 of
Seymour are reproduced below with green markings added.

As shown in Figures 5 and 6 of Seymour, folded airbag 34 is held in
place by fabric envelope 36. Id. In Figure 5, tear tabs 40 are included in
slot 42 on fabric envelope 36, whereas fabric envelope 36, in Figure 6,
includes tear seam 46, which comprises a weak stitch pattern of thin thread.
Id. Tear tabs 40 and tear seam 46 are designed to retain the folds of airbag
34 in place, and pull apart and release the folds as airbag 34 is inflated. Id.
Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument and Mr. Helleman’s testimony
(PO Resp. 28; Ex. 2015 ¶ 77), Seymour would not discourage one with
ordinary skill in the art from using a releasable temporary holding feature.
Ex. 1012, 2:9–15, 42–48. The portion of Seymour (id. at 1:36–49) relied
upon by Patent Owner and Mr. Helleman’s testimony (PO Resp. 28;
Ex. 2015 ¶ 77) indicates the problems to be solved by the releasable
temporary holding features disclosed in Seymour. More importantly,
Seymour describes using these releasable temporary holding features to
reduce number components and to optimize the airbag module. Ex. 1012,
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

26
2:9–48. According to Seymour, by replacing a traditional airbag housing
with a fabric envelope that has tear tabs or a tear seam, the airbag module
would be smaller, lighter, and has fewer parts, allowing the airbag module to
be assembled easier and faster, and to be produced more cost effectively. Id.
Given these advantages disclosed in Seymour, we find that Seymour’s
teachings would have encouraged an ordinarily skilled artisan to make such
a simple substitution, expressly providing reasons to use a releasable
temporary holding feature in an airbag. Significantly, Seymour also shows
that implementing a releasable temporary holding feature—namely, tear tabs
or a tear seam in an airbag module to hold the folds of an airbag in place (see
Ex. 1012, 2:9–48)—would not have been “uniquely challenging” or
otherwise beyond the level of an ordinary skilled artisan. See Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418) (finding that Leapfrog failed to present
evidence that the inclusion a “reader” into the device as issue was “uniquely
challenging”). Therefore, Seymour does not undermine Petitioner’s
showing of obviousness, as alleged by Patent Owner. Rather, Seymour
supports Petitioner’s articulated reasoning as to why one with ordinary skill
in the art would have combine the prior art teachings.
Patent Owner’s arguments and Mr. Helleman’s testimony (PO Resp.
27–29; Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 75–80) also are not commensurate with the claim scope,
by importing improperly a limitation from a preferred embodiment
(Ex. 1001, 8:5–10) into the claims. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348
(CCPA 1982) (It is well established that limitations not appearing in the
claims cannot be relied upon for patentability.). Nothing in the claims
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

27
requires the releasable temporary holding feature to be directly on the
particular fold where the cord is anchored. The claims merely require “the
fold is held in place by” a stitching or any other releasable temporary
holding feature. We decline to import improperly a limitation from a
preferred embodiment into the claims. See Thorner v. Sony Computer
Entm’t Am. L.L.C., 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that it is
not enough that the only embodiment, or all of the embodiments, contain a
particular limitation to limit a claim to that particular limitation.).
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has
established sufficiently that the combination of Inoue, Pinsenschaum, and
Wolanin renders obvious the “releasable temporary holding feature”
limitations, as recited by claims 1, 6, 20, 25, and 28.
Conclusion for Claims 1–3, 6, 20–22, 25, and 28–30
In consideration of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 6, 20–22,
25, and 28–30 are unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Inoue, Pinsenschaum, and Wolanin.

F. Claims 26, 27, 33–37, and 40—Obviousness over Inoue, Pinsenschaum,
Wolanin, and Tajima
Petitioner asserts that claims 26, 27, 33–37, and 40 are unpatentable
under § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Inoue, Pinsenschaum,
Wolanin, and Tajima. Pet. at 51–54. Claims 26 and 27 depend directly
from claim 20; and claims 33 and 34 depend directly from claim 28.
Claims 36, 37, and 40 depend directly from independent claim 35, which
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

28
recites similar limitations as those of claim 20, and further recites a
“diffuser.” As discussed above, we determine that Petitioner has
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimed subject
matter, as a whole, recited in independent claims 20 and 28 would have been
obvious over the combination of Inoue, Pinsenschaum, and Wolanin.
Therefore, our discussion here focuses on the additional limitations recited
in claims 26, 27, 33–37, and 40.
Fixed Vent
The parties dispute whether the combination of prior art renders
obvious an airbag having both a closeable vent and a fixed vent that is
“adapted to vent gas during airbag deployment with and without
obstruction,” as recited in claims 27, 34, and 40. Pet. 51–53; PO Resp. 50–
59. In that regard, Petitioner alleges that an airbag with a fixed vent is well
known in the art at the time of the invention, as evidenced by each of Inoue,
Pinsenschaum, Wolanin, and Tajima. Pet. 51–53 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 3,
Ex. 1010, 1:16–19, Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 7, 71, 95–102, Figs. 3, 4, 21–24). Petitioner
notes that Pinsenschaum states that “to facilitate the discharge of inflator gas
from the airbag, it is common to incorporate vents in the form of normally
open fixed diameter apertures across the walls of the airbag.” Pet. 51–53;
Ex. 1009 ¶ 3 (emphasis added). Petitioner also notes that Tajima discloses
such fixed vents on an airbag. Pet. 51–53; Ex. 1013 ¶ 71, Figs. 3, 4, 21.
Petitioner further asserts that, in light of the prior art teachings, an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have been found it obvious to utilize both a closeable
vent and a fixed vent on an airbag. Id. at 53 (citing Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 68–70).
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

29
Patent Owner advances a number of arguments that the combination
of prior art does not render obvious an airbag having a closeable vent and a
fixed vent, as required by the claims at issue. PO Resp. 51–57. For support,
Patent Owner directs our attention to the Declaration of Mr. Helleman, who
essentially repeats Patent Owner’s arguments. Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 141–168.
First, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner fails to articulate a
sufficient rationale to combine the prior art references. PO Resp. 54–57.
According to Patent Owner, “[t]here is no need to add fixed vents to
Petitioner’s hypothetical airbag to account for accidental closure” because an
airbag “designer of ordinary skill would [have been] fully aware of the
airbag’s behavior in both theoretical and real-world environments and would
optimize that design for predictable, reliable, and consistent operation.” Id.;
Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 154–59 (emphasis added). Patent Owner also argues that
adding a fixed vent would compromise the performance of the airbag system
by venting too much gas in the situation where there is no obstruction, and
that Tajima’s fixed vent is ineffective. Id. at 52–53, 56; Ex. 2015 ¶ 154.
Upon consideration of the evidence in this entire record, we are not
persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments and expert testimony because they
improperly characterize the advantage, disclosed in Tajima, for having both
a closeable vent and a fixed vent disposed on an airbag as teaching away
from adding a fixed vent to an airbag—requiring the prior art to disclose
expressly a motivation for adding a fixed vent to an airbag that already has a
closeable vent.
Tajima discloses several embodiments, each of which illustrates an
airbag having a closeable vent and two fixed vents, as well as a diffuser,
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

30
which we will discuss in the next section below. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 71, 95,
Figs. 3–6, 21–24. For instance, Figures 21 and 22 of Tajima are reproduced
below (with blue annotations and green markings added), showing one of
the embodiments.

As shown in annotated Figures 21 and 22 of Tajima above, airbag 85
includes diffuser 39, closeable vent 86, and fixed vents 34—one fixed vent
on each side of the airbag. Fixed vents 34 have fixed openings and are
adapted to vent gas during deployment with and without obstruction, as they
are not equipped with a closeable mechanism. Id. ¶¶ 70, 71, 95. According
to Tajima, having a closeable vent and fixed vents disposed on the same
airbag will provide smooth deployment when there is an obstruction. Id.
¶ 71. Therefore, Tajima explicitly discloses a reason why one with ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious to implement a closeable vent
and fixed vents in the same airbag. More importantly, Tajima illustrates that
implementing such an airbag would not have been “uniquely challenging” or
Closeable
vent 86
Fixed vent 34
Closeable
vent 86
Fig. 21 Fig. 22
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

31
otherwise beyond the level of an ordinary skilled artisan at the time of the
invention. See Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162.
Patent Owner’s argument that having fixed vents would compromise
the performance by venting too much gas is misplaced. PO Resp. 56;
Ex. 2015 ¶ 154. Tajima explicitly indicates that “gross opening” of the fixed
vents is not possible. Ex. 1013 ¶ 71.
Also, Patent Owner’s argument that “fixed vents may not vent when
an obstruction is encountered” contradicts the teachings of Tajima, and
improperly attempts to construe the claims to require every fixed vent on the
airbag to vent all the time continuously during the deployment. PO Resp.
52; Ex. 2015 ¶ 146. The claims merely recite “a fixed vent disposed on the
airbag and adapted to vent gas during airbag deployment with and without
obstruction.” Notably, according to Tajima, because the inflating gas is
exhausted from the fixed vents during deployment when there is an
obstruction, “the increased pressure forces on the interfering object HP can
be prevented in a remarkably smooth manner.” Ex. 1013 ¶ 70.
Furthermore, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that
Tajima’s fixed vents are ineffective. PO Resp. 52–53; Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 147–48.
The portion of Tajima relied upon by Patent Owner’s argument discusses the
disadvantage of an airbag having only fixed vents, without a closeable vent.
Ex. 1013 ¶ 71. Patent Owner’s argument again is not commensurate with
the claim scope. The claims at issue do not require a single fixed vent, by
itself, to be operated effectively but allow for both fixed vents and closeable
vents. In fact, Tajima discloses that having a closeable vent and fixed vents
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

32
on an airbag will provide a smooth deployment when there is an obstruction.
Id.
Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Helleman, testifies that a person with
ordinary skill in the art would have been “fully aware of the airbag’s
behavior in both theoretical and real-world environments and would
optimize that design for predictable, reliable, and consistent operation.”
Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 157–58. Therefore, such an artisan would have been capable of
predictably implementing an airbag that has a closeable vent and fixed vents
in order to provide smooth deployment, as taught by Tajima. Doing so
would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art and would have
amounted to combining known elements according to their established
functions, yielding predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416–18. In light of
the evidence before us, we determine that Petitioner’s explanation for
combining the teachings of Inoue, Pinsenschaum, Wolanin, and Tajima
suffices as an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to justify the
legal conclusion of obviousness.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of
Inoue, Pinsenschaum, Wolanin, and Tajima, renders obvious the “fixed
vent” claim limitation, as required by claims 27, 34, and 40.
Diffuser
Claims 26, 33, 35–37, and 40 each require “a diffuser configured to
[redirect] inflation gas to the closeable vent from an inflator such that the gas
rapidly exits the inflatable airbag cushion via the closeable vent when
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

33
deployment of the airbag is obstructed.” Ex. 1001, 12:5–9, 12:41–45,
12:49–13:5, 14:4–6.
Petitioner asserts that “Tajima discloses that [a] rectifying fabric or
diffuser changes the flow of the incoming deployment gas to direct it in both
left and right side directions.” Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 34). Petitioner
submits that the disputed claim limitation requires redirecting the gas to a
closeable vent such that the gas rapidly exits the airbag via the closeable
vent, whereas Tajima’s diffuser redirects the gas to exit the side vents, which
are fixed vents in Tajima’s airbag. Id. at 54 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 39, 70;
Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 68, 71). Nevertheless, Petitioner maintains that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have found it obvious to use Tajima’s diffuser to
redirect the gas toward closeable vents which are on the sides of Inoue’s
airbag, as modified in view of Pinsenschaum and Wolanin, to more readily
exhaust excess gas from the airbag during deployment, as discussed by
Tajima. Id.
Patent Owner advances a number of arguments that the combination
of prior art does not render obvious an airbag having a “diffuser” as required
by claims 26, 33, 35–37, and 40. PO Resp. 29–50. Patent Owner relies
upon the Declaration of Mr. Helleman, who essentially repeats the Patent
Owner’s arguments. Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 83–138. We have considered Patent
Owner’s arguments and supporting expert testimony, and determine that
they are unpersuasive.
First, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to consider the effect of
Bernoulli’s principle—pressure is lower in a moving fluid than in a
stationary fluid (Ex. 1001, 6:64–7:10)—which allegedly requires the gas to
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

34
flow directly in a straight path from the diffuser to the closeable vents. PO
Resp. 32–34; Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 85–95. Patent Owner maintains that Tajima does
not disclose the claimed “diffuser,” because Tajima’s diffuser does not direct
the flow of gas towards the closeable vent, but towards a solid portion of the
airbag sidewall, which would again redirect the flow of air towards the
forward portion of the airbag. Id. at 38–41; Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 82, 107–114.
At the outset, Patent Owner, once again, attempts to substantiate its
position by importing improperly a limitation from a preferred embodiment
into the claims. See Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325,
1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[I]t is improper to read limitations from a preferred
embodiment described in the specification—even if it is the only
embodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record
that the patentee intended the claims to be so limited.”). Nothing in the
claims requires the gas flows directly in a straight path from the diffuser to
the closeable vents, much less requires a particular location of the closeable
vents that accounts for the effect of Bernoulli’s principle.
Further, Patent Owner’s attack of the references individually does not
undermine Petitioner’s showing of obviousness, because nonobviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the ground
of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (Fed. Cir. 1981). Here, we
are persuaded that the prior art teachings, as a whole, would have rendered
obvious a diffuser that redirects the inflating gas to a closeable vent such that
the gas rapidly exits the airbag via the vent when deployment is obstructed
by an out-of-position occupant. For instance, Figure 3 of Tajima is
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

35
reproduced below with annotations added by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp.
33):

As shown in annotated Figure 3 of Tajima above, diffuser 39 is
located inside of airbag 10, redirecting the gas flow to the left and right sides
of the airbag. Ex. 1013 ¶ 35. As the parties point out, Tajima’s diffuser
redirects the gas to exit the side vents. Pet. 54; Prelim. Resp. 32. The side
vents of Inoue, Pinsenschaum, and Wolanin are closeable vents. Ex. 1008,
Fig. 1; Ex. 1009, Figs. 3A–3B; Ex. 1010, Figs. 4A–4C. As such,
incorporating Tajima’s diffuser into such an airbag would redirect the gas to
the closeable vents, such that the gas rapidly exits the airbag via the
closeable vents.
Interestingly, Patent Owner does not explain why an ordinarily skilled
artisan—who would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree in
Engineering and three to six years of working experience in design,
development, and testing airbags (Ex. 1017 ¶ 15; Ex. 2015 ¶ 22)—would not
have considered it obvious to optimize the location of the vents on an airbag,
especially in view of its own expert’s testimony that an ordinarily skilled
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

36
artisan would have been “fully aware of the airbag’s behavior in both
theoretical and real-world environments and would optimize that design for
predictable, reliable, and consistent operation.” Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 157–58.
Moreover, such an artisan would not compel to follow blindly the teaching
of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent
judgment. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21 (stating that a person with
ordinary skill in the art is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton,” and “in many cases . . . will be able to fit the teachings of
multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle”).
Second, Patent Owner alleges that one with ordinary skill in the art
would not have been motivated to combine Tajima’s diffuser and the airbag
of Inoue, as modified in view of Pinsenschaum and Wolanin. PO Resp. 34–
38; Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 97–99. In particular, Patent Owner asserts that Tajima’s
diffuser, redirecting the gas to the sides, would compromise the performance
of the airbag because, without sufficient forward movement of the gas, the
airbag would fail to expand as desired for full deployment or fail to operate
as designed. PO Resp. 36–37; Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 99–104. Patent Owner also
contends that Tajima’s diffuser would prevent the cord from extending and
the closeable vents from closing, as required by the claims at issue. PO
Resp. 41–46; Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 115–22.
Patent Owner’s arguments squarely contradict the teachings of
Tajima. See Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 34, 95–102, Figs. 3–4, 21–24. Notably, Tajima
discloses an airbag that has a diffuser, a closeable vent, and fixed vents for
providing smooth deployment to protect an occupant in situations where:
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

37
(1) the occupant does not obstruct the deployment; and (2) the occupant is
out-of-position and is obstructing the deployment. Id.
Figures 23 and 24 are reproduced below with blue annotations and
green markings added.

Annotated Figures 23 and 24 of Tajima illustrate the deployment of
airbag 85—the same embodiment as shown in Figures 21 and 22 reproduced
in our Fixed Vents discussion above—which has a diffuser, a closeable vent,
and fixed vents. Id. ¶¶ 95–103. As annotated Figure 23 shows, where there
is no obstruction from an occupant, cord 89 extends completely and closes
closeable vent 86, and, more significantly, airbag 85 operates as designed,
deploying fully to protect the occupant. Id. Also, annotated Figure 24
shows that, where deployment of airbag 85 is obstructed by out-of-position
occupant HP, cord 89 does not extend fully and closeable vent 86 remains
Closeable
vent 86
Closeable
vent 86
Fig. 23 – Full Deployment without
obstruction
Fig. 24 – Deployment with obstruction
from out-of-position occupant HP
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

38
open so that gas G rapidly exits airbag 85 via closeable vent 86, providing a
smooth deployment protecting out-of-position occupant HP. Id.
Tajima illustrates that implementing a diffuser, a closeable vent and
side vents in the same airbag would not have compromised the performance
of the airbag, as alleged by Patent Owner. Id. ¶¶ 95–103, Figs. 21–24.
Importantly, Tajima demonstrates that such an implementation would not
have been “uniquely challenging” or otherwise beyond the level of an
ordinary skilled artisan. See Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162.
Third, Patent Owner argues that the addition of extra components to
an airbag such as Tajima’s diffuser generally is disfavored because any
additional material cost, weight, or extra component impacts the desirability
and performance of an airbag design. PO Resp. 37–38; Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 105–06.
Patent Owner’s general allegation regarding additional cost and weight is
not persuasive. For instance, Patent Owner does not submit sufficient or
credible evidence that the alleged increase of cost or weight would have a
substantial or meaningful impact such that it would dissuade one with
ordinary skill in the art from utilizing a diffuser in an airbag. Moreover, the
alleged increase of cost or weight, if any, does not substantiate Patent
Owner’s position of nonobviousness in view the advantage of providing
smooth deployment to protect an occupant, as taught by Tajima. See
Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(“given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and
disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to
combine”); In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 717–18 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (where
a prior art reference taught the addition of inhibitors as the most convenient,
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

39
but costliest, solution to a particular problem, the court held that the
additional expense would not have discouraged one of ordinary skill in the
art from seeking the convenience expected therefrom). As discussed above,
Tajima’s diffuser redistributes the inflating gas uniformly to provide a
smooth deployment, protecting an occupant even in the situation where the
occupant is out-of-position obstructing the deployment. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 34, 95–
102, Figs. 3–4, 21–24. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at
417.
Finally, Patent Owner argues that the combination of Pinsenschaum
and Tajima fails to render the “diffuser” limitation obvious. PO Resp. 44–
46. In particular, Patent Owner alleges that during early deployment and
deployment with obstruction, Pinsenschaum’s closeable vents as shown in
Figure 3A of Pinsenschaum are closed and not venting any gas. Id. As
discussed above, however, each of Inoue’s outlet hole, Wolanin’s closeable
vents, and Tajima’s closeable vents remains open during early deployment
and during deployment with obstruction. Ex. 1008, Abs., ¶¶ 1, 7, 10, 12, 29,
Figs. 1–4; Ex. 1010, Abs., 3:51–68, Figs. 4A, 4C; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 95–103,
Figs. 21–24. Patent Owner’s arguments narrowly focus on only one of the
embodiments of Pinsenschaum, and fail to consider the combination of
Inoue, Pinsenschaum, Wolanin, and Tajima, as a whole. See Merck, 800
F.2d at 1097.
IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

40
In light of the prior art teachings before us, we are persuaded that
Petitioner has provided articulated reasoning with rational underpinning why
one with ordinary skill in the art would have combined Tajima’s diffuser
with the airbag of Inoue, as modified in view of Pinsenschaum and Wolanin.
For the reasons stated above, we also are persuaded that Petitioner has
demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence the combination of Inoue,
Pinsenschaum, Wolanin, and Tajima renders obvious the “diffuser”
limitations, as recited in claims 26, 33, 35–37, and 40.
Conclusion for Claims 26, 27, 33–37, and 40
In consideration of the foregoing, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 26, 27, 33–37,
and 40 are unpatentable over the combination of Inoue, Pinsenschaum,
Wolanin, and Tajima.

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 6, 20–22,
25–30, 33–37, and 40 of the ’653 patent are unpatentable based on the
following grounds:
Claims Basis References
1–3, 6, 20–22, 25,
and 28–30 § 103(a) Inoue, Pinsenschaum, and Wolanin
26, 27, 33–37, and 40 § 103(a) Inoue, Pinsenschaum, Wolanin, and Tajima

IPR2014-01006
Patent 7,614,653 B2

41
IV. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is:
ORDERED that claims 1–3, 6, 20–22, 25–30, 33–37, and 40 of
the ’653 patent are held unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

For PETITIONERS:
Roger W. Parkhurst
Houda Morad
Stephanie L. Schonewald
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
rparkhurst@steptoe.com
autolivIPR@steptoe.com

For PATENT OWNER:
Keith E. Broyles
Wesley C. Achey
Pamela Holland Council
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
keith.broyles@alston.com
wes.achey@alston.com
pamela.council@alston.com