NHK Seating of America, Incv.Lear Corporation

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 12, 2016

10185198 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2016)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 30
Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: January 12, 2016
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

NHK SEATING OF AMERICA, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
LEAR CORPORATION,
Patent Owner.

Case IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2

Before NEIL T. POWELL, MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, and
CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge.
FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
I. INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND
NHK Seating of America, Inc. (“NHK”) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–4, 6–17, 20, 21, and 25
of U.S. Patent No. 6,631,949 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’949 patent”). NHK
supported the Petition with a declaration from Richard W. Kent, PhD
(Ex. 1010). Lear Corporation (“Lear”) timely filed a Preliminary Response.
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
2
Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On January 13, 2015, based on the record before
us at the time, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–4, 6–17, 20,
21, and 25, Paper 7 (“Institution Decision” or “Dec.”), on the following
grounds:
References Basis Claims challenged
Japanese Unexamined Patent
Application Publication No. H11-
34708 (“Nakano”) (Ex. 1004 with
certified translation at Ex. 1005)
§ 102(b) 1, 3, 6–11, 20, and 21
European Patent Application No.
1,053,907 A1 (“Kage”) (Ex. 1006)
§ 102(a) 1, 3, and 6–9
International Publication No.
WO 98/09838 A1 (“Wiklund”)
(Ex. 1007)
§ 102(b)
1, 3, 4, 6–9, 12–17, 20,
and 21
Wiklund and Tim Seitzer, “Simple
cams deliver no-nonsense motion
control,” Machine Design, August 7,
1997 (“Seitzer”) (Ex. 1008)
§ 103 2 and 25
Dec. 29.
After we instituted this review, Lear filed a Patent Owner Response in
opposition to the Petition (Paper 11, “Resp.”) that was supported by the
declaration of David C. Viano, PhD (Ex. 2010
1
). NHK filed a Reply in
support of the Petition (Paper 14, “Reply”) that was supported by an
additional declaration from Dr. Kent (Ex. 1012).

1
Throughout its Response, Lear cites Dr. Viano’s declaration as Exhibit
2009. However, our review of the record reveals that Dr. Viano’s declaration
was submitted as Exhibit 2010, which we cite throughout this Decision as
appropriate.
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
3
Lear also filed a Motion to Strike and/or Exclude the Testimony of
NHK’s Expert, Richard W. Kent. Paper 19 (“Motion” or “Motion to
Exclude”). NHK opposed the Motion to Exclude. Paper 22 (“Mot. Opp.”).
Lear filed a Reply in support of the Motion. Paper 23 (“Mot. Reply”). Lear
did not move to amend any claim in the ’949 patent.
We heard oral argument on September 10, 2015. A transcript is
entered as Paper 29 (“Tr.”).
For the reasons expressed below, we conclude that NHK has
demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that claims 1, 3, 6–9, 12–16,
20, and 21 are unpatentable, but NHK has failed to demonstrate that claims
2, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 25 are unpatentable. We also deny Lear’s Motion to
Exclude.
B. RELATED MATTERS
NHK identified as a related proceeding the co-pending district court
litigation of Lear Corporation v. NHK Seating of America, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-
12937-SJM-RSW (E.D. Mich.), filed July 5, 2013. Pet. 1.
C. THE ’949 PATENT
The ’949 patent relates to “a variable movement headrest arrangement
for providing support to the head of an occupant of a vehicle upon vehicle
impact.” Ex. 1001, 1:13–15. Among the challenged claims, claims 1, 12,
20, and 25 are independent and are directed to a “seat and headrest
arrangement.” Claims 1 and 12, which are illustrative, recite:
1. A vehicle seat and headrest arrangement for use with a
seat having a seatback in a vehicle, the vehicle seat and headrest
arrangement comprising:
a headrest arrangement including a headrest, an impact
target, and one of a guide member and a follower;
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
4
the seatback having the other one of a guide member and
follower, the guide member having a guideway and the
follower extending laterally and engaging the guideway
of the guide member such that upon impact to the vehicle
a rearward load by the occupant upon the impact target
will cause the follower to engage the guideway in such a
manner to cause the headrest to be moved in a first
manner and a second manner to support a head of an
occupant.
Id. at 11:6–19.
12. A vehicle seat and headrest arrangement for use with a
seat having a seatback in a vehicle, the vehicle seat and headrest
arrangement comprising:
a headrest arrangement including a headrest and a headrest
extension, the headrest extension having one of a guide
member and a follower and an impact target located
below the one of a guide member and a follower;
a seatback frame of the seatback having side members and
an upper cross frame member, the upper cross frame
member having the other of a guide member and
follower, the guide member having a guideway and the
follower extending laterally and slidingly engaging the
guideway of the guide member such that upon impact to
the vehicle a rearward load by an occupant upon the
impact target will cause the follower to be slidably
guided by the guideway such that the headrest is moved
in a first manner and a second manner.
Id. at 12:18–35.
The Specification describes an embodiment of the claimed seat by
referring to Figures 2 and 3. We reproduce below versions of Figures 2 and
3 that are colorized to aid understanding of the seat with a headrest
arrangement recited in the claims.
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
5

Figure 2 of the ’949 patent is a
perspective schematic view of
headrest arrangement 14
incorporated into seatback frame 13.
Figure 3 of the ’949 patent is a
detailed cross section view of
follower 39 and guide (unnumbered
but green) with guideway 25.
Upon a rearward load being applied to impact target 26 (pink),
connectors 28 (blue) pivot about axis A and impact target 26 (pink) moves
rearward and upward. Id. at 6:49–53. Movement of impact target 26 (pink)
causes headrest extensions 24 (pink) to slide upward through guideway 25 of
guide members 21 (green). Id. at 6:53–58. Follower 39 (red) on headrest
extension 24 (pink) slides along the interior walls of guideway 25 as
headrest extension 24 (pink) carrying headrest 22 (purple) moves upward,
which results in headrest 22 (purple) moving with first and second velocities
along first and second trajectories. Id. at 8:10–45.
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
6
II. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
“A claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable
construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.”
37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d
1268, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We conclude that Congress implicitly
approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the
AIA.”). When applying that standard, we interpret the claim language as it
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
specification. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir.
2010). Thus, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning.
See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The
ordinary and customary meaning ‘is the meaning that the term would have to
a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.’”). Only terms which are in
controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to
resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200
F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
After our Institution Decision, the parties dispute only the meaning of
“first manner” and “second manner.” Resp. 10–17; Reply 6. All four
independent claims require that the headrest moves “in a first manner and a
second manner.” Ex. 1001, 11:18–19 (claim 1), 12:34–35 (claim 12), 13:37–
38 (claim 20), and 14:39–40 (claim 25).
For purposes of instituting this trial, we found that NHK’s proposed
interpretation of movement in “a first and second manner” as referring to
movement in “any two different ways” was appropriate. Dec. 6–8. We also
rejected Lear’s attempt to limit “first and second manner” to mean “[a]t least
one of the first forward velocity and first trajectory of the first manner is
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
7
different than one of the second forward velocity and second trajectory of
the second manner.” Id. at 7–8. We rejected Lear’s preliminary argument
because it improperly attempted to incorporate limitations of preferred
embodiments into the claims without express limitations to those
embodiments. Id.
After institution, Lear argues that movement in “a first and a second
manner” refers to movement “in a first trajectory and a second trajectory.”
Resp. 10–17. NHK counters that, because “trajectory” is recited in
dependent claim 10 and was to distinguish prior art, we must interpret “a
first manner and a second manner” more broadly than “a first trajectory and
a second trajectory.” Reply 6. We are persuaded by NHK’s counter
argument, but must consider whether our prior interpretation of “first
manner and second manner” as meaning “any two different ways” is too
broad. For the reasons that follow, we determine that “in a first manner and
a second manner” does refer to movement in “any two different ways.”
The Specification broadly introduces the concepts of “first manner”
and “second manner” as follows:
As will be described in greater detail below, headrest 22 moves
variably upon vehicle impact. In the embodiment shown, such
variable movement occurs in first and second manners wherein
the first and second manners relate to first and second forward
velocities respectively, those being the velocities of the headrest
22 forward toward the occupant or the front of the vehicle, and
first and second trajectories respectively, those being the
trajectories or paths of headrest 22. Such variable movement
could be along any suitable combination of trajectories and
velocities. As long as at least one of the first forward velocity
and first trajectory is different than one of a second forward
velocity and second trajectory, movement in first and second
manners, variable movement, has been achieved.
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
8
Ex. 1001, 5:12–26 (emphasis added). This passage is consistent with
interpreting “first manner and second manner” as meaning “any two
different ways.” As described in this quoted passage, if either the forward
velocity or the trajectory of the headrest, or both changes, then movement in
a first and second manner has occurred. For example, if the headrest were to
move forward at one velocity and then merely slow down (or speed up) on
the same trajectory, then movement would occur in a first and second
manner.
Lear bases its argument for equating “manner” with “trajectory” on
quoted portions of the Specification that are altered to remove broadening
language indicating that a first and second manner refers to a change in
velocity or a change in trajectory. Resp. 12–13 (quoting with alterations
Ex. 1001, 5:9–18; 8:25–33, 8:42–46, 9:8–19).
2
Lear, by altering its selected
portions of the Specification, ignores the clearly broader description of first
and second manner quoted above as referring to any change in forward
velocity or trajectory or both.
Other portions of the Specification, however, indicate a preferred
relationship between the first and second manner in which the headrest
moves quickly immediately upon impact (i.e., in a first manner) and slows
down as it approaches the occupant’s head (i.e., in a second manner). For
example, the Specification states in the sentence immediately following the
broad description quoted above:
However, as will be explained in more detail, in the event
of a vehicle impact, it is preferable that the headrest move in a
first manner so as to more quickly lessen the gap between the

2
We interpret Lear’s citations to the ’949 patent to be to Ex. 1001, 5:12–21,
8:23–30, 8:39–43, 9:11–15.
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
9
head of an occupant and the headrest 22 and move in a second
manner so as to decrease the forward velocity and provide
support upon contact with the occupant’s head.
Ex. 1001, 5:28–33. In this passage, the headrest first moves quickly toward
the head and then slows down to support the head as it contacts the head. In
the more detailed remaining portions of the Specification relating to “first
and second manner,” the Specification describes the first manner as moving
more quickly toward the head and the second manner as moving more
slowly to support the head. E.g., id. at 9:5–10, 9:15–16, 9:42–46. In all
these portions, the headrest slows as it approaches the occupant’s head
because both the forward velocity and the trajectory change. Id.
The claims are not expressly limited, however, to these preferred types
of movement in a first and second manner. We interpret claims according to
their broadest reasonable interpretation that is consistent with the
specification, but we take care not to incorporate limitations that appear only
in the specification. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404–05 (CCPA 1969).
Additionally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has noted
that:
To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set
forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain
and ordinary meaning. . . . It is not enough for a patentee to
simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same
manner in all embodiments, the patentee must “clearly express
an intent” to redefine the term.
Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (internal citations omitted). Lear does not identify any portion of the
Specification indicating a clear intent to limit “manner” as Lear proposes.
Citing to examples in the Specification of preferred “first and second
manners” while ignoring broader descriptions of them does not redefine
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
10
“first manner and second manner,” which has a plain and ordinary meaning.
Because the Specification broadly introduces the concepts of “first manner”
and “second manner” to encompass movements in any two different ways,
we maintain our preliminary interpretation of “in a first manner and a second
manner” as meaning “in any two different ways.”
III. THE CHALLENGES TO PATENTABILITY
We instituted a review of the patentability of claims 1–4, 6–17, 20, 21,
and 25 of the ’949 patent on the grounds that those claims may be
anticipated or obvious in light of various prior art references including:
Nakano, Kage, Wiklund, and Seitzer. Dec. 10–29.
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631
(Fed. Cir. 1987). The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) reaffirmed the framework for determining
obviousness as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
As observed by the Court in KSR, the factual inquiries set forth in Graham
that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and content of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at
issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
11
KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. With these standards in mind, we address each
challenge below.
A. THE PARTIES’ POST-INSTITUTION ARGUMENTS
In our Institution Decision, we concluded that the argument and
evidence adduced by NHK demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that:
(1) Nakano anticipated claims 1, 3, 6–11, 20, and 21, Dec. 14–20; (2) Kage
anticipated claims 1, 3, and 6–9, id. at 20–21; (3) Wiklund anticipated
claims 1, 3, 4, 6–9, 12–17, 20, and 21, id. at 21–24; and (4) the combination
of Wiklund and Seitzer rendered claims 2 and 25 obvious, id. at 24–29. We
must now determine whether NHK has established by a preponderance of
the evidence that the specified claims are unpatentable over the cited prior
art. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). In this connection, we previously instructed Lear
that “any arguments for patentability not raised in the [Patent Owner
Response] will be deemed waived.” Paper 8, 2–3; see also 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.23(a) (“Any material fact not specifically denied may be considered
admitted.”). Additionally, the Board’s Trial Practice Guide states that the
Patent Owner Response “should identify all the involved claims that are
believed to be patentable and state the basis for that belief.” Office Patent
Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
Accordingly, with regard to all limitations of the claims other than
those that Lear identifies in the Response as being novel over the prior art,
the record now contains unrebutted arguments and evidence presented by
NHK regarding the merits of the teachings of Nakano, Kage, Wiklund, and
Seitzer. We agree with and adopt NHK’s factual contentions set forth in the
Petition and the Reply with regard to these limitations. We find that the
preponderance of the evidence of record developed at trial supports our
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
12
conclusion that NHK has set forth how the alleged prior art teaches or
suggests the uncontested limitations of the reviewed claims. Accordingly,
we do not address these uncontested limitations in our discussion below.
B. ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1–3, 6–11, 20, AND 21 BY NAKANO
We preliminarily determined that NHK had established a reasonable
likelihood of showing that Nakano anticipates claims 1, 3, 6–11, 20, and 21.
Dec. 14–20. For the reasons expressed below, NHK persuades us by a
preponderance of evidence that Nakano anticipates claims 1, 3, 6–9, 20, and
21, but has failed to do so for claims 10 and 11.
1. Overview of Nakano
The operation of Nakano is illustrated in the colorized versions of
Nakano’s Figure 4 (reproduced below left) and Figures 5(a)–(d) (reproduced
below right).

Nakano’s Fig. 4 is a perspective view
of a linkage for actuating a head
Nakano’s Figs. 5(a)–(d) are
schematic illustrations of Nakano’s
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
13
restraint during a collision. linkage in the design position
(Fig. 5(a)), the actuated position
(Fig. 5 (d)), and intermediate
positions (Figs. 5(b) and 5(c)).
Nakano’s linkage includes frame 31 (yellow), first link arm 61
(green), second link arm 62 (blue), third link arm 63 (red), load receiving
member 50 (blue), and head rest holder brackets 36 (pink). Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 16–
20. During impact, load bearing members 50, 51 receive load and transfer
that load through link arms 61, 62, 63 to raise head rest 40 (id., Fig. 6) to an
actuated position. Id. ¶ 19. Under normal conditions, coil spring 67 biases
first link arm 61 (green) clockwise as seen in Figures 5(a)–(d) so that the
linkage is held in the design position. Id. ¶¶ 23, 25, Figs. 4, 5(a). During
impact, forces extend coil spring 67 and move the linkage to an actuated
position in which first link arm 61 and second link arm 62 rotate
counterclockwise and third link arm 63 rotates clockwise and slides upward.
Id. ¶¶ 25–29. The sliding of third link arm 63 is constrained and guided by
pin 65, which projects from side portion 31a of frame 31 and engages guide
hole 66 in third link arm 63. Id. ¶ 22. Head rest holder brackets 36 (pink)
are supported within and slide through brackets 35 (yellow), which are
attached to frame 31 (yellow), as the linkage moves the headrest from the
design to the actuated position. Id. ¶ 17, Figs. 2, 6.
Nakano describes the way in which its linkage moves the headrest as
follows:
[A]s shown in Fig. 5 (b), . . . the coordinated operation of the
first, second and third link arms 61, 62, 63 raises the holder
bracket 36 fastened to the joint bar 64 between the second link
arms 62, 62, lifting up the head rest 40.
* * *
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
14
Subsequently, as shown in Fig. 5 (d), the third link
arm 63, 63 is moved by the lower load-bearing member 51, and
in particular, guide pin 65 slides through the arc-shaped
portion 66b of guide hole 66, causing the third link arm 63, 63
to rise along this arc-shaped trajectory, accompanying which
the first link arm 61, 61 rotates counterclockwise in the drawing
and the second link arm 62, 62 operates in coordination, lifting
the holder bracket 36 fastened to the second link arm 62, 62 and
the head rest 40 obliquely forward, carrying it to a position
where it is close to the passenger’s head, thereby ensuring that
support is provided to the head.
Id. ¶¶ 26, 29 (emphasis added).
2. Lear’s Arguments
Lear argues that Nakano does not anticipate some or all of claims 1, 3,
6–11, 20, and 21 for five reasons. First, Lear contends that Nakano fails to
describe a headrest that moves in a first and second manner as required in all
these claims. Resp. 20–25. Second, Lear argues that Nakano’s guide
pins 65 and guide holes 66 do not “cause the headrest to be moved in a first
and a second manner” as recited in claims 1, 3, and 6–11. Id. at 25–26.
Third, Lear argues that Nakano’s frame brackets 35 and the combination of
holders 36 with their extensions do not cause the headrest to be “moved in a
first manner and a second manner” as recited in claims 20 and 21. Id. at 27–
28. Fourth, Lear argues that Nakano fails to describe a follower that extends
laterally and slidingly engages the guideway as required in claims 20 and 21.
Id. at 28–32. Fifth, Lear argues that Nakano fails to describe a headrest that
moves more slowly toward the occupant’s head during its movement in a
second manner than while moving in a first manner as required in claims 10
and 11. Id. at 32–34. We address each argument below.
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
15
a) Claims 1–3, 6–11, 20, and 21: First and Second Manners
NHK provides argument and evidence explaining how Nakano
describes all elements of claims 1–3, 6–11, 20, and 21. Pet. 19–34. To
establish movement of the headrest in first and second manners, NHK relies
in part upon testimony of Dr. Kent explaining his kinematic model of
Nakano’s linkage that purportedly illustrates the path through which
Nakano’s headrest moves during actuation. Id. at 20–21 (citing Ex. 1010
¶ 54). Dr. Kent used the drawings in Nakano as the input for his kinematic
modeling effort. Ex. 1010 ¶ 54, Attachment B. NHK also relies upon
Nakano’s description of the movement of its headrest as being raised by “a
designated stroke” and “subsequently” lifted “obliquely forward.” Id. at 19–
20 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 29, 33, Figures 5a–d); Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 22,
26, 29). Nakano describes the movement of its headrest as follows:
[A]s shown in Fig. 5 (b), . . . the coordinated operation of the
first, second and third link arms 61, 62, 63 raises the holder
bracket 36 fastened to the joint bar 64 between the second link
arms 62, 62, lifting up the head rest 40.
Ex. 1005 ¶ 26 (emphasis added).
Subsequently, as shown in Fig. 5 (d), the third link
arm 63, 63 is moved by the lower load-bearing member 51, and
in particular, guide pin 65 slides through the arc-shaped
portion 66b of guide hole 66, causing the third link arm 63, 63
to rise along this arc-shaped trajectory, accompanying which
the first link arm 61, 61 rotates counterclockwise in the drawing
and the second link arm 62, 62 operates in coordination, lifting
the holder bracket 36 fastened to the second link arm 62, 62 and
the head rest 40 obliquely forward, carrying it to a position
where it is close to the passenger’s head, thereby ensuring that
support is provided to the head.
Id. ¶ 29 (emphasis added).
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
16
Lear argues that NHK failed to demonstrate that Nakano describes a
headrest that moves in a first manner and a second manner because Dr.
Kent’s original modeling of Nakano’s headrest failed to account for the
constraint imposed by brackets 35. Resp. 20–23. Lear further contends that
its expert, Dr. Viano, “correctly model Nakano” and determined that
brackets 35 were “essential” to predicting the motion of Nakano’s headrest.
Id. at 23. Lear also argues that movement of Nakano’s headrest may be
defined mathematically by a single equation, which allegedly demonstrates
that Nakano’s headrest moves along “a single trajectory.” Id. at 23–24
(citing Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 112–15). Lear contends that Dr. Kent “admits” that a
path of motion that can be expressed by a single equation establishes
movement in only one manner. Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 2012, 17:3–14). Our
review of the cited testimony, reveals that it does not support Lear’s
contention. We also do not understand Dr. Viano’s testimony to support a
conclusion that a “single equation” defines the movement of Nakano’s
headrest. Dr. Viano refers to Exhibit 2018 as reflecting his derivation of the
mathematical relationships that define movement of Nakano’s headrest.
Ex. 2010 ¶ 112 (citing Ex. 2018). Exhibit 2014 demonstrates that one
equation defines the movement of Nakano’s headrest in the x-direction and
another equation defines it in the y-direction. Ex. 2018, 1. Dr. Viano never
provides an exemplary output of these two equations to illustrate how
Nakano’s headrest would actually move. More importantly, however, Lear
does not explain how Nakano’s express description that the coordinated
operation of links 61, 62, and 63 lifts its headrest (as shown in Figure 5b)
and subsequently lifts the headrest obliquely forward (as shown in
Figure 5d) fails to constitute movement in a first and second manner.
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
17
NHK persuades us by a preponderance of evidence that Nakano
describes a headrest that moves in a first and second manner. More
specifically, Nakano expressly states that it lifts the headrest (a first manner)
and then subsequently lifts the headrest obliquely forward (a second
manner). We need not determine whether Dr. Kent’s first or second
kinematic model or Dr. Viano’s kinematic or geometric model accurately
depicts the movement of Nakano’s headrest because Nakano expressly
describes movement in first and second manners.
b) Claims 1, 3, and 6–11: Whether Nakano’s Guide Pins and
Guide Holes Cause the Headrest to Move in First and
Second Manners
Claims 1, 3, and 6–11 require that a follower engage a guide member
such that the headrest moves in first and second manners. See Ex. 1001,
11:6–18. NHK identifies Nakano’s guide holes 66 and guide pins 65 as the
claimed guide member and follower that cause the headrest to move in the
first and second manners. Pet. 21–24. Lear argues that guide holes 66 and
guide pins 65 do not cause movement in the first and second manners.
Resp. 25–26. Instead, Lear contends that link arms 61 (green), which rotate
around fixed fulcrum 61a, completely define the movement of the headrest
and that guide pins 65 moving in guide holes 66 have no effect on how the
headrest moves. Id. Lear cites testimony from Drs. Viano and Kent as
support for its contention. Id. (citing Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 127–33; Ex. 2012 73:21–
76:15, 78:24–79:7).
We determine that both experts undermine Lear’s contention by
testifying that movement of guide pin 65 through guide hole 66 constrains
movement of link 63 and defines the length of the path through which
Nakano’s headrest travels. Ex. 2010 ¶ 133; Ex. 2012, 75:1–21, 78:24–79:7.
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
18
Additionally, Nakano repeatedly describes that it is the coordinated
movement of link arms 61, 62, and 63 that affects how the headrest moves.
E.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 8–10, 12, 13, 19, 26, 27, 30–33. Accordingly, NHK
persuades us by a preponderance of evidence that Nakano’s guide hole 66
and guide pin 65 constitute a claimed guide member and follower that are
among the elements of Nakano that causes the headrest to move in a first
and a second manner as required in claims 11 and 14.
c) Claims 20 and 21: Whether Nakano’s Brackets
35/Holders 36 and Headrest Extensions Cause the Headrest
to Move in First and Second Manners
Claims 20 and 21 require that a follower slidingly engage a guide
member such that the headrest moves in a first and second manner. See
Ex. 1001, 13:33–38. NHK identifies Nakano’s bracket 35 and the
combination of headrest extension 36 and holder 37 as the claimed guide
member and follower that cause the headrest to move in the first and second
manner. Pet. 31–33. Lear argues that Dr. Kent’s initial modeling of how
Nakano’s headrest moves, which does not constrain movement of the
headrest by bracket 35, demonstrates that bracket 35 does not influence
movement of Nakano’s headrest and thus cannot cause the headrest to move
in a first and second manner. Resp. 27–28.
Lear’s argument is unpersuasive. Nakano’s bracket 35 indisputably
constrains the manner in which headrest extension 36 slides through
bracket 35 and thus, at least in part, causes headrest to move in a first and
second manner. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 14 (stating that Figures 1–7 depict “same
vehicle seat”), ¶ 17 (brackets 35 support pipe-shaped holder bracket 36);
Ex. 2010 ¶ 109 (“bracket 35 is essential to control the movement of the head
restraint”); Ex. 2011, 107:2–16 (bracket 35 constrains lateral movement of
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
19
headrest extensions 36). Accordingly, NHK persuades us by a
preponderance of evidence that Nakano’s bracket 35 constitutes a claimed
guide member and the combination of holder 36 and stay holder 37
constitutes a claimed follower that are among the elements of Nakano that
cause the headrest to move in a first and second manner as required in
claims 20 and 21.
d) Claims 20 and 21: Follower Extending Laterally and
Slidingly Engaging the Guideway
Independent claim 20 recites, among other limitations, “a laterally
extending follower . . . and the follower slidingly engaging the guideway of
the guide member . . . .” Ex. 1001, 14:5–12. NHK identifies bracket 35 as
the guide member and the combination of holder 36 and stay holder 37 as
the follower that extends laterally. Pet. 31–33. Lear argues that the
prosecution history of the ’733 patent precludes any structure having a
constant diameter from constituting a follower that is “extending laterally.”
Resp. 29–30. If we were to accept Lear’s argument about the scope of
“extending laterally,” Lear contends that holder 36 cannot be a follower
because it has a constant diameter and stay holder 37 cannot be a follower
because it does not slidingly engage the identified guideway (bracket 35).
Id. at 30–31.
We are persuaded that the combination of holder 36 and stay
holder 37, which NHK identifies as the follower constitutes the claimed
follower that extends laterally and engages the guideway. Our conclusion
remains the same even if we were to accept Lear’s argument that constant
diameter structures cannot constitute the claimed “follower.” The combined
structure of holder 36 and stay holder 37 is not a constant diameter structure
because stay holder 37 is of greater diameter than holder 36 and extends
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
20
laterally from holder 36. Lear does not contest that holder 36 slidingly
engages bracket 35. Accordingly, we are persuaded by a preponderance of
evidence that Nakano describes the follower of claims 20 and 21.
e) Claims 10 and 11: Whether the Forward Velocity of
Nakano’s Headrest Decreases as It Moves in the Second
Manner
Claims 10 and 11 require that the forward velocity of the headrest
decrease as the headrest moves in the second manner. Claim 10 recites:
“movement in the first manner is movement on a first trajectory and at a first
forward velocity and movement in the second manner is movement on a
second trajectory and at a second forward velocity which is less than the first
forward velocity.” Ex. 1001, 12:7–11. Claim 11 recites: “movement in the
first manner quickly decreases a distance between the headrest and the head
of the occupant, while movement in the second manner decreases a velocity
of the headrest forward (sic, toward) the head of the occupant . . . .” Id. at
12:13–16. Lear contends that Nakano fails to describe a movement of the
headrest in accordance with either claim 10 or claim 11. We agree.
Nakano describes the way in which its linkage moves the headrest as
follows:
[A]s shown in Fig. 5 (b), . . . the coordinated operation of the
first, second and third link arms 61, 62, 63 raises the holder
bracket 36 fastened to the joint bar 64 between the second link
arms 62, 62, lifting up the head rest 40.
* * *
Subsequently, as shown in Fig. 5 (d), the third link
arm 63, 63 is moved by the lower load-bearing member 51, and
in particular, guide pin 65 slides through the arc-shaped
portion 66b of guide hole 66, causing the third link arm 63, 63
to rise along this arc-shaped trajectory, accompanying which
the first link arm 61, 61 rotates counterclockwise in the drawing
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
21
and the second link arm 62, 62 operates in coordination, lifting
the holder bracket 36 fastened to the second link arm 62, 62 and
the head rest 40 obliquely forward, carrying it to a position
where it is close to the passenger’s head, thereby ensuring that
support is provided to the head.
Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 26, 29 (emphasis added).
(1) NHK’s Reliance on Kinematic Models of Nakano’s
Headrest
NHK proffers Dr. Kent’s testimony based upon his kinematic
modeling of the movement of Nakano’s headrest as evidence of how
Nakano’s headrest moves. Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 54). Dr. Kent
based his kinematic model of Nakano’s headrest upon Nakano’s illustrations.
Ex. 1010 ¶ 54. NHK also relies upon Dr. Viano’s kinematic model of the
movement of Nakano’s headrest and his “admission” that Nakano
“necessarily” reduces the forward velocity of the headrest. Reply 17 (citing
Ex. 1020). Dr. Viano’s kinematic model of Nakano’s headrest is also
derived from an analysis of Nakano’s illustrations. Ex. 2010 ¶ 107.
Drs. Kent and Viano use kinematic modeling techniques to reach
similar conclusions about the path through which Nakano’s headrest moves.
The figures reproduced below illustrate those conclusions with the output of
Dr. Viano’s model shown on the left and the output of Dr. Kent’s second
model shown on the right.
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
22

The figure above is a portion of an
illustration of the path (shown as a
red line) through which a point on
Nakano’s headrest moves as
determined by Dr. Viano.
The figure above is a portion of an
illustration of the path (shown as a
series of red dots) through which a
point on Nakano’s headrest moves as
determined by Dr. Kent.
Dr. Kent’s second model differs significantly from his first model of
Nakano because, when generating his first model, he did not consider
bracket 35 as constraining the movement of post 36. Ex. 1013 ¶ 15. The
variability in the results among all three kinematic models undermines the
reliability of the technique the experts used to determine the precise path
through which Nakano’s headrest moves. Dr. Kent testifies that others,
including Dr. Viano, often use graphical representations of linkages as input
for creating reliable kinematic models. Id. ¶¶ 9–13.
Lear argues, however, that we cannot rely on kinematic models
because the accuracy of those models depends upon using drawings that are
to scale. Resp. 9 (citing Nystrom v. TREX Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1148–49
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that because “patent drawings do not define the
precise proportions of the elements” the district court erred in determining
invalidity based on “models made from [such] drawings”); In re Olson, 212
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
23
F.2d 590, 592 (C.C.P.A. 1954) (“drawings which accompany an application
for a patent are merely illustrative of the principles embodied in the alleged
invention”)). Under Nystrom, we may not rely on evidence based solely
upon patent illustrations to establish precise proportions of a disclosed
structure. The proponent of the modeling must establish that the reference
containing the illustrations provides at least some indication that the
illustrations are to scale. Nystrom, 424 F.3d at 1149.
Just as in Nystrom, NHK attempts to transform static images that are
not established as being drawn to scale into a model that reveals undisclosed
details about the illustrated structure. NHK goes even farther than the
Nystrom defendant, however, because NHK uses Nakano’s static images to
generate a dynamic model of Nakano’s headrest to derive the path through
which the headrest moves. Accordingly, under Nystrom, NHK fails to
persuade us that we can rely upon any of the modeling performed by either
expert as persuasive evidence of the path through which Nakano’s headrest
would move.
(2) Nakano’s Express Description of the Forward Velocity of
Its Headrest
Lear persuasively argues that Nakano’s express description of the
movement of its headrest is insufficient to establish whether the first forward
velocity of the headrest is greater than the second forward velocity.
Resp. 32–34. As explained above, Nakano describes first “lifting up the
head rest,” Ex. 1005 ¶ 26, and subsequently lifting the headrest “‘obliquely
forward’ . . . to a position where it is close to the passenger’s head,” id. ¶ 29.
Nakano’s description says nothing about the velocity of the headrest.
Based on our review of the evidence of record, NHK fails to persuade
us that Nakano describes a headrest that moves with a first forward velocity
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
24
along a first trajectory that is greater than a second forward velocity along a
second trajectory as required in claims 10 and 11. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded that Nakano anticipates claim 10 and 11.
3. Conclusion
For the reasons described above, NHK persuades us by a
preponderance of evidence that Nakano describes a headrest that moves in a
first manner and a second manner as required in claims 1–3, 6–9, 20, and 21.
NHK also persuades us by a preponderance of evidence that Nakano
describes a follower that extends laterally and slidingly engages the guide
member as required in claims 19 and 20. NHK also persuades us that the
structures it identifies in Nakano cause the headrest to move in first and
second manners as required in claims 1–3, 6–9, 20, and 21. As stated in part
III.A above, we also are persuaded that NHK has established by a
preponderance of evidence that Nakano describes all other elements of
claims 1–3, 6–9, 20, and 21. Accordingly, we conclude that NHK has
established by a preponderance of evidence that Nakano anticipates
claims 1–3, 6–9, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). NHK has failed to
persuade us by a preponderance of evidence that Nakano describes a
headrest that moves in the ways recited in claims 10 and 11.
C. ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 3, AND 6–9 BY KAGE
Claims 1, 3, and 6–9 all require that the headrest move in a first and
second manner. Ex. 1001, 11:17–19. We preliminarily determined that
NHK had established a reasonable likelihood of showing that Kage
anticipates claims 1, 3, and 6–9. Dec. 20–21. Lear argues that Kage does
not anticipate these claims because Kage fails to describe a headrest that
moves in a first and second manner. Resp. 34–39.
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
25
1. Overview of Kage
The operation of Kage is illustrated in the colorized versions of
Kage’s Figures 1 and 2 (reproduced below).

Kage’s colorized Figure 1 depicts
movable frame 2 with headrest
supports 2a mounted within fixed
frame 10.
Kage’s colorized Figure 2 depicts
how movable frame 2 and headrest
supports 2a move within fixed
frame 10 upon impact.
Kage relates to a seat that “can receive a load from [a] passenger’s
waist and the headrest can be quickly and stably moved forward.” Ex. 1006,
2:42–44. Kage’s seat includes stationary seat frame 10, 11, 14 (yellow) and
movable seat frame 2 (green) from which headrest support guides 2a (pink)
extend to support headrest 1. Id. at 7:21–36, 7:55–8:1. Guide shafts 4
extend from moveable frame 2 (green) and slidably engage guide holes 3.
Id. at 7:42–50. Link members 5 (blue) are pivotally connected to movable
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
26
frame 2 (green) at pivot axes 7 and to fixed frame 10 (yellow) at link
shafts 8. Id. at 8:8–15.
When rearward force is applied to seat frame 2c (green), link
members 5 (blue) pivot upward and frame 2c (green) is guided along
moving path S1. Id. at 8:43–48. Guide shafts 4 slide within guide holes 3 as
movable frame 2 moves upward. Id. As a result, the headrest 1 moves along
linear moving path S2, which is defined by a combination of moving path S1
and the shape of guide holes 3. Id. at 8:49–54.
Kage illustrates its linear path S2 in
the pertinent portion of its Figure 3, which
is reproduced at right, as the path through
which a point on the front-facing surface of
headrest 1 moves as link members 5 move
along moving path S1. Id. at 8:39–42,
8:49–54. The pertinent portion of Kage’s
Figure 3 also illustrates an alternative
moving path S2' for the same point on headrest 1, which Kage describes as
follows:
[I]f the guide holes 3 are formed to have a linear shape or a
shape which is convex toward the front side of the vehicle body,
the headrest 1 is displaced forward with respect to the vehicle
body at an early timing of its movement, and is then displaced
upward, as indicated by a path S2' in Fig. 3. In such case, the
distance between the passenger’s head and headrest can be
shortened quickly at an early timing of movement of the
headrest 1, and when the passenger’s head contacts the
headrest in practice, the relative speed between the passenger’s
head and headrest can be minimized (since the moving
direction of the headrest has changed in the upward direction).
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
27
Id. at 8:58–9:5 (emphasis added). The emphasized portion of the quotation
establishes that Kage’s headrest moves differently at the beginning and end
of its path S2'. Namely, Kage’s headrest moves quickly toward the
occupant’s head at the beginning of path S2' and more slowly toward the
occupant’s head at the end of path S2'.
2. Analysis
NHK provides argument and evidence explaining how Kage describes
all elements of claims 1, 3, and 6–9. Pet. 34–42. NHK relies upon the
variable movement of Kage’s headrest along path S2' as describing
movement of the headrest in first and second manners. Lear argues that
Kage fails to describe a headrest that moves in a first trajectory and a second
trajectory because paths “S2 and S2' are each single trajectories.” Resp. 38.
Lear also argues that both experts confirm that the alleged “single trajectory”
path S2' constitutes movement in “one way.” Id. (citing Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 150–
63; Ex. 2012, 33:14–35:5).
Lear’s argument is unpersuasive because it relies upon Lear’s
interpretation of “a first manner and a second manner” as meaning “a first
trajectory and a different second trajectory.” Resp. 21–24. We reject Lear’s
interpretation for the reasons discussed in part II above. Additionally, we are
not persuaded by Lear’s reliance on expert testimony to establish that Kage’s
headrest moves in “one way” along path S2' for two reasons. First, and most
importantly, the testimonial evidence plainly contradicts Kage’s explanation
of how headrest 1 moves along path S2' in one way early in its travel and
another way later in its travel (i.e., “the moving direction of the headrest has
changed in the upward direction.”). Ex. 1006, 9:8–12. Second, Lear’s cited
portion of Dr. Kent’s testimony fails to establish that path S2' constitutes
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
28
movement in one way. Dr. Kent’s testimony merely establishes that Kage’s
headrest moves more forwardly early in path S2' and more upwardly in the
latter part of path S2'. Ex. 2012, 34:20–35:5. We, therefore, conclude that
Dr. Kent’s testimony fails to establish that movement along path S2' is
movement in “one way.”
3. Conclusion
For the reasons described above, NHK persuades us by a
preponderance of evidence that Kage describes a headrest that moves in a
first manner and a second manner. As stated in part III.A above, we also are
persuaded that NHK has established by a preponderance of evidence that
Kage describes all other elements of claims 1, 3, and 6–9. Accordingly, we
conclude that NHK has established by a preponderance of evidence that
Kage anticipates claims 1, 3, and 6–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
D. ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 3, 4, 6–9, 12–17, 20, AND 21 BY
WIKLUND
We preliminarily determined that NHK had established a reasonable
likelihood of showing that Wiklund anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, 6–9, 12–17,
20, and 21. Dec. 21–24. For the reasons expressed below, NHK persuades
us by a preponderance of evidence that Wiklund anticipates claims 1, 3, 6–9,
12–16, 20, and 21, but NHK fails to do so for claims 4 and 17.
1. Overview of Wiklund
The colorized versions of Wiklund’s Figures 2–4 (shown below)
illustrate Wiklund’s active head restraint system and the manner in which
Wiklund’s headrest moves during a collision.
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
29

Wiklund’s Fig. 2 is a perspective
view of elements that move
headrest 4 during a collision.
Wiklund’s Figs. 3 and 4 are side views
illustrating the manner in which
headrest 4 moves during a collision.
During a rear collision, the occupant is forced backwards against Wiklund’s
maneuvering means 10 (orange). Ex. 1007, 5:28–30. Movement of
means 10 causes link arms 12 (blue) to rotate counterclockwise (as shown in
Figs. 3 and 4), which lifts and rotates frame part 17 (orange). Id. at 5:28–
6:1. This movement of frame part 17 slides holders 23 upward through
supports 24 to lift headrest 4 and rotates holders 23 to move headrest 4
forward. Id.
2. Lear’s Arguments
Lear argues that Wiklund does not anticipate some or all of claims 1,
3, 4, 6–9, 12–17, 20, and 21 for three reasons. Resp. 39–52. First, Lear
contends that Wiklund fails to describe a headrest that moves in a first and
second manner as required in all these claims. Id. at 39–45. Second, Lear
argues that Wiklund fails to describe the “follower” extending laterally or
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
30
slidingly engaging the guideway as recited in all these claims. Id. at 45–47.
Third, Lear argues that the structures in Wiklund that NHK identifies as the
follower and guideway of claims 4 and 17 do not have the claimed first and
second surface portions. Id. at 47–52. We address each argument below.
a) Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–9, 12–17, 20, and 21: First and Second
Manners
NHK contends that Wiklund’s movement of its headrest upward while
rotating forward constitutes movement in a “first and second manner.”
Pet. 45–46, 51–52 (citing Ex. 1007, 5:25–6:4). Wiklund describes the
movement of its headrest as follows:
[D]uring a rear end collision, the support mechanism 5 can be
made to take up the position shown in Fig. 4, where the neck
support 4 has been moved forwards and upwards relative to the
back 3 in order to support the head 6 of the person in the chair.
During such a rear end collision the manoeuvering means 10 is
subjected to such a large force backwards relative to the
frame 9 by the back of the person that it is moved and, with the
help of the link arms 12, guided in such a way that the
holders 23 slide upwards in the support 24 at the same time as
they are bent forwards.
Ex. 1007, 5:25–6:1 (emphasis added).
Lear cites the same passage from Wiklund as establishing that
Wiklund’s headrest moves “simultaneously upward and forward along a
single trajectory.” Resp. 42–44. Lear also relies upon Dr. Viano’s testimony
to support its contention that Wiklund’s headrest moves along a single
trajectory. Id. (citing Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 170–79, 184–89). Dr. Viano concludes
that Wiklund moves in a single trajectory based on two models of the
movement of Wiklund’s headrest. Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 170–93. Dr. Viano’s first
model is a kinematic model of Wiklund’s linkage derived using dimensions
in Wiklund’s figures as input data that simulates the movement of Wiklund’s
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
31
headrest as the linkage moves. Ex. 2010 ¶ 170. Dr. Viano’s second model is
a mathematical model of a “simplified linkage that is analogous” to
Wiklund’s arrangement. Id. ¶ 176.
We determine Dr. Viano’s modeling to be inconclusive on the issue of
how Wiklund’s headrest would actually move. Lear criticizes Dr. Kent’s use
of patent illustrations as a basis for a kinematic model of a prior art linkage
as being improper. Resp. 10–11 (citing Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., 424 F.3d
1136, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that because “patent drawings do not
define the precise proportions of the elements” the district court erred in
determining invalidity based on “models made from [such] drawings.”); In
re Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592 (C.C.P.A. 1954) (“drawings which accompany
an application for a patent are merely illustrative of the principles embodied
in the alleged invention.”). Lear never explains why we should reject Dr.
Kent’s reliance on patent illustrations as input for his kinematic modeling
while simultaneously relying upon Dr. Viano’s reliance on patent
illustrations as input for his kinematic modeling of Wiklund. Accordingly,
we do not rely upon Dr. Viano’s kinematic modeling of Wiklund’s headrest.
NHK contends that Dr. Viano’s mathematical modeling is “improper”
based on testimony by Dr. Kent. Reply 20 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 16–22).
According to NHK, Dr. Viano’s mathematical modeling oversimplifies
Wiklund’s linkage. Id. Even if we were to assume that Dr. Viano’s
mathematical model of Wiklund’s linkage were valid, Lear never proffers
evidence of the shape of the path through which Wiklund’s headrest would
actually move according to Dr. Viano’s mathematical model.
Nevertheless, even if we were to accept Dr. Viano’s modeling as
accurate and Lear’s contention that Wiklund’s headrest moved in a “single
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
32
trajectory” as true, Lear’s argument would be unpersuasive because it is
based on Lear’s argument that we should equate “manner” with “trajectory.”
As explained in part II above, we interpret moving in a first manner and a
second manner broadly to cover movement in two different ways. Wiklund
plainly states its headrest moves in two different ways because holders 23 of
headrest 4 simultaneously slide upward through support 24 and bend
forward. Accordingly, NHK persuades us by a preponderance of evidence
that Wiklund describes a headrest that moves in first and second manners.
b) Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–9, 12–17, 20, and 21: Follower Extending
Laterally and Slidingly Engaging the Guideway
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–9 recite a “follower extending
laterally and engaging the guideway of the guide
member.” Ex. 1001, 11:13–14. Claims 12–17 recite “the
headrest extension having one of a guide member and a
follower . . . the follower extending laterally and slidingly
engaging the guideway of the guide member.” Id.
at 12:22–31. Claims 20 and 21 recite “a laterally
extending follower . . . the follower slidingly engaging the
guideway of the guide member . . . .” Id. at 13:24–34. NHK identifies the
combination of holder 23 (pink) holder part 27 (pink) and unnumbered stay
(red), which are illustrated in the portion of the colorized version of
Wiklund’s Figure 4 reproduced at right, to be the follower extending
laterally and slidingly engaging the guideway of the guide member
(support 24 (green)). Pet. 45–46 (claim 1), 52 (claim 12), 56 (claim 20).
Lear argues that holder 23 and holder parts 27 cannot be the claimed
follower because no portion of holder part 27 ever contacts support 24 and,
therefore, holder parts 27 do not engage the guide member. Resp. 45–46.
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
33
Lear also contends that holders 23 do not extend laterally because they have
a constant diameter. Id. at 47
Lear’s argument is unpersuasive because it fails to address the entire
combination of elements that NHK identifies as the follower, namely
holder 23, holder parts 27, and the unnumbered stay (red). NHK persuades
us that the stay (red) extends laterally from holder 23, which slides within
support 24. Our conclusion remains the same even if we were to accept
Lear’s argument that constant diameter structures cannot constitute the
claimed “follower.” The combined structure of holder 23 and stay (red) is
not a constant diameter structure because the stay is of greater diameter than
holder 23 and it extends laterally from holder 23. Lear does not contest that
holder 23 slidingly engages support 24. Accordingly, NHK persuades us by
a preponderance of evidence that Nakano describes the follower of claims 1,
3, 4, 6–9, 12–17, 20, and 21.
c) Claims 4 and 17: Guideway Wall with First and Second
Portions and Follower with First and Second Surface
Portions
Claim 4, which depends from claim 3, which depends from claim 1,
recites details of how the follower engages the guideway within the guide
member as follows:
the guideway has a first guideway wall and a second guideway
wall and the follower has a first follower portion and a second
follower portion which engage the first guideway wall and
second guideway wall respectively . . . .
Ex. 1001, 11:27–30;
the second guideway wall has a first contact portion and a
second contact portion and the second follower portion has a
first surface portion and a second surface portion such that upon
impact to the vehicle, the first surface portion slidingly engages
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
34
the first contact portion while the first follower portion slidingly
engages the first guideway wall so as to cause the headrest to
move in a first manner before the second surface portion
slidingly engages the second contact portion as the first
follower portion continues to slidingly engage the first
guideway wall so as to cause the headrest to move in a second
manner.
Id. at 11:34–44.
Claim 17, which depends from claim 16, which depends from claim
12, recites similar limitations to those of claim 4 as follows:
the guide member is fixedly attached to the seatback frame and
has a first guideway wall and a second guideway wall and the
follower is fixedly attached to the headrest extension and has a
first follower portion and a second follower portion which
slidingly engage the first guideway wall and second guideway
wall respectively.
Id. at 12:54–59;
the second guideway wall has a first contact portion and a
second contact portion and the second follower portion has a
first surface portion and a second surface portion such that upon
impact to the vehicle, the first surface portion slidingly engages
the first contact portion while the first follower portion slidingly
engages the first guideway wall so as to cause the headrest to
move in the first manner before the second surface portion
slidingly engages the second contact portion as first follower
portion continues to slidingly engage the first guideway wall so
as to cause the headrest to move in the second manner.
Id. at 12:61–13:4.
NHK identifies various parts of Wiklund’s support 24 as meeting the
limitations on the guide member and various parts of holders 23 as meeting
the limitations on the follower as shown in the two annotated versions of
portions of Wiklund’s Figure 3 reproduced below. Pet. 47–48 (claim 4), 55
(claim 17).
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
35

The annotated version of a portion of Wiklund’s Figure 3
illustrates the alleged follower and guideway.
NHK identifies the respective front and back wall portions of Wiklund’s
support 24 and holder 23 as the limitations directed to first and second walls
of the guideway and first and second portions of the follower that are
introduced in claims 3 and 16. Id. at 47 (claim 3), 54–55 (claim 16).

The annotated portion of Wiklund’s Figure 3 illustrates portions
of holder 23 and support 24 allegedly corresponding to the
claimed follower and guideway.
NHK identifies the specific portions of support 24 and holder 23 as meeting
the detailed limitations on the guideway within the guide member and the
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
36
follower that are introduced in claims 4 and 17. Id. at 47–48 (claim 4), 55
(claim 17). NHK proffers Dr. Kent’s testimony to explain how holder 23
and support 24 function in accordance with these limitations on the follower
and guide member. Id. at 37–38 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 88, 89). The only
evidence that Dr. Kent cites to support his testimony is the annotated figures
from Wiklund reproduced above and Wiklund’s description of how
holder 23 slides within support 24. Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 88, 89.
Lear recognizes that support 24 must permit holder 23 to tilt forward
within the opening inside support 24. Resp. 50. Nevertheless, Lear argues
that Dr. Kent’s testimony about the internal details of support 24 reflects
“speculative assumptions” and that Wiklund’s Figure 3 fails to show any
specific type of contact between the exterior of holder 23 and the internal
surfaces of support 24. Id. Dr. Kent’s deposition testimony illustrates Dr.
Kent’s uncertainty about the internal structure of support 24. For example,
Dr. Kent testifies:
Q And the interior surface of 24, whether it’d be a bushing
or otherwise, we don’t know if it’s a cylindrical shape, or it may
be some other shape, correct?
A I believe that’s correct.
Ex. 2012, 197:11–15; see also id. at 148:12–20, 149:13–150:7, 195:2–6
(describing possible different internal configurations of support 24).
Because of the uncertainties about the internal structure of support 24, Lear
argues that Wiklund fails to describe either explicitly or inherently the
required two sequential types of contact between the claimed follower and
guide member. Resp. 50–51. Lear’s argument is persuasive.
“An expert’s conclusory testimony, unsupported by the documentary
evidence, cannot supplant the requirement of anticipatory disclosure in the
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
37
prior art reference itself.” Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp., 121
F.3d 1461, 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Dr. Kent admits that the internal structure
of support 24 may take a number of different forms that permit holder 23 to
tilt within support 24. Ex. 2012, 148:12–20, 149:13–150:7, 195:2–6,
197:11–15. NHK responds to Lear’s arguments by proffering an additional
declaration from Dr. Kent in which he describes the specific way in which
parts of holder 23 contact the internal structure of support 24 in the way
required by claim 15. Reply 21–22 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 49). Dr. Kent cites
nothing but the same ambiguous portions of Wiklund’s description to
support his testimony. Additionally, Dr. Kent’s additional declaration
contradicts his deposition testimony and is therefore entitled to little if any
weight. We are not persuaded by NHK’s argument and evidence relating to
the manner in which Wiklund’s holder 23 contacts the undisclosed internal
surfaces of support 24. To demonstrate anticipation, “the reference must
disclose each and every element of the claim with sufficient clarity to prove
its existence in the prior art.” Motorola, 121 F.3d at 1473. “Although this
disclosure requirement presupposes the knowledge of one skilled in the art
of the claimed invention, that presumed knowledge does not grant a license
to read into the prior art reference teachings that are not there.” Id. We find
Dr. Kent’s testimony to be speculation that is insufficient to demonstrate that
Wiklund explicitly or inherently describes the type of contact between the
follower and guide member that is required in claims 4 and 17. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded by a preponderance of evidence that Wiklund
anticipates claims 4 and 17.
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
38
3. Conclusion
For the reasons described above, NHK persuades us by a
preponderance of evidence that Wiklund describes a headrest that moves in a
first manner and a second manner as required in claims 1, 3, 6–9, 12–16, 20,
and 21. NHK also persuades us by a preponderance of evidence that
Wiklund describes a follower that extends laterally and slidingly engages the
guide member as required in claims 1, 3, 6–9, 12–16, 20, and 21. NHK fails
to persuade us by a preponderance of evidence, however, that Wiklund
describes all the limitations of claims 4 and 17. As stated in part III.A
above, we also are persuaded that NHK has established by a preponderance
of evidence that Wiklund describes all other elements of claims 1, 3, 6–9,
12–16, 20, and 21. Accordingly, we conclude that NHK has established by a
preponderance of evidence that Wiklund anticipates claims 1, 3, 6–9, 12–16,
20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), but NHK has failed to do so with
regard to claims 4 and 17.
E. OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 2 AND 25 IN VIEW OF WIKLUND AND
SEITZER
We preliminarily determined on the record before us at the time that
NHK had established a reasonable likelihood of showing that the
combination of Wiklund and Seitzer renders claims 2 and 25 unpatentable as
obvious. Dec. 24–29. We cautioned, however, that “a more complete record
developed over the course of a trial may warrant a different result.” Id.
at 28. For the reasons expressed below, NHK fails to persuade us by a
preponderance of evidence that the combination of Wiklund and Seitzer
renders claims 2 and 25 unpatentable as obvious.
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
39
1. Claims 2 and 25
Claim 2 depends from claim 1. Ex. 1001, 11:20–25. Claim 25 is an
independent claim. Id. at 14:30–47. Both claims recite “the guide member
is a bushing having a cam configuration and the follower is a cam such that
engagement of the cam and cam configuration together with a forward
momentum of the headrest causes
3
the headrest to move in the first manner
and the second manner.” Id. at 11:20–25 and Certificate of Correction
(claim 2), 14:42–47 (claim 25).
2. NHK’s Argument and Evidence
NHK contends that the combination of Wiklund and Seitzer renders
claims 2 and 25 obvious and sets forth the evidence from Wiklund and
Seitzer to support its contentions in claim charts. Pet. 57–60. NHK also
proffers Dr. Kent’s testimony to explain the manner in which the
combination of Wiklund and Seitzer describes the requirements recited in
these claims. Id. (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 102, 104, 105, 108). NHK relies upon
Wiklund as describing all elements of claim 2 and all elements of claim 25
except for the use of a bushing having a cam configuration and a follower
that is a cam. Id. at 59–60. NHK relies upon Seitzer as describing the
desirability of using mechanical cams as “motion systems.” Id. at 58. NHK
also contends that Seitzer suggests using cams “when applications demand
accuracy, durability and speed . . . because they precisely control position,
velocity, and acceleration with no discontinuity or jerk.” Id. (citing
Ex. 1008, 1). NHK points out that Seitzer describes advantages of using

3
Claim 2 recites “cause” rather than “causes” as recited in claim 25.
Compare Ex. 1001, 11:24 with 14:45. We do not consider the difference to
be material to our Decision.
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
40
cams as offering “the accuracy of electromechanical servosystems in
simpler, more economical packages and require less maintenance than fluid-
power systems.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008, 1).
In view of Seitzer’s express suggestion of the types of applications for
which cams are suited and the expressly stated advantages of using them,
NHK contends that:
it would have been obvious to include a cam configuration in
Wiklund’s bushing type support 24. Similarly, it would have
been obvious for Wiklund’s follower type holder 23, which
slidingly engages with the bushing type support 24, to have a
cam that follows the cam configuration in order to provide a
more precise motion profile of the headrest and to reduce the
speed of the headrest toward the occupant's head before
impacting the occupant’s head.
Id. NHK supports its conclusions of obviousness with Dr. Kent’s testimony.
Id. (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 105).
3. Lear’s Arguments
Lear argues that NHK fails to establish that one or both of claims 2
and 25 are unpatentable as obvious for three reasons. Resp. 52–60. First,
Lear argues that the combination of Wiklund and Seitzer fails to describe all
elements of claim 2, namely, the elements in base claim 1 that Lear
previously identifies as being missing from Wiklund’s teachings. Id. at 52.
Second, Lear argues that Seitzer is not “analogous art” and therefore not
properly considered in combination with Wiklund when evaluating whether
claims 2 and 25 are obvious. Id. at 56–60. Third, Lear argues that because
Seitzer fails to describe the types of cams recited in claims 2 and 25, the
combination of Wiklund and Seitzer does not support a finding that those
claims would have been obvious. Id. at 53–56. We address each argument
below.
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
41
a) Claim 2: Neither Wiklund nor Seitzer Describe Elements of
Base Claim 1
Lear argues that the combination of Wiklund and Seitzer fails to
render claim 2 unpatentable as obvious because the combination fails to
describe elements recited within intervening base claim 1. Resp. 52. For the
reasons expressed in part III.D above, we are not persuaded by Lear’s
argument.
b) Claims 2 and 25: Whether Seitzer Is Analogous Art
Lear argues that Seitzer does not qualify for consideration in an
obviousness analysis of the claimed subject matter because Seitzer is not
analogous to the claimed invention. Resp. 56–60. Whether a prior art
reference is “analogous art” that is proper to consider in an obviousness
analysis is a question of fact. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir.
2004); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Courts apply a two-
pronged test to determine whether a prior art reference is “analogous art”
that is properly considered in an obviousness analysis.
Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1)
whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of
the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the
field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor is involved.
Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. The appropriate field of endeavor is determined by
referring to the specification of the patent at issue “including the
embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.” Id.
at 1325–26. “A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be
in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which,
because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
42
itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” Clay, 966 F.2d
at 659.
(1) Field of Endeavor
Regarding the first prong of the analysis, Lear contends that testimony
from both experts establishes that Seitzer is directed to “manufacturing
machinery,” which is a different field of endeavor than the field of active
head restraint systems to which the ’949 patent is directed. Resp. 58 (citing
Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 210–11, 217; Ex. 2012, 198:12–14, 200:17–21, 206:22–25). In
response, NHK proffers no evidence or argument to establish that Seitzer
and the ’949 patent are directed to the same field of endeavor. See
Reply 24–25 (addressing “analogous art” issue). Accordingly, we determine
that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that Seitzer is directed to
a different field of endeavor than the ’949 patent and thus fails the first
prong of the analysis.
(2) Reasonably Pertinent Problem
Lear contends that Seitzer is not reasonably pertinent to a skilled
artisan involved with designing a “variable movement headrest arrangement
for providing support to the head of an occupant of a vehicle upon vehicle
impact.” Resp. 58–60. Lear cites testimony from Dr. Viano explaining that
because Seitzer is directed to machinery used in manufacturing processes, it
would not have commended itself to the attention of an inventor considering
the problem of moving an active head restraint in a particular manner. Id.
at 59 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 211–16); see also Ex. 2012, 206:22–25 (Dr. Kent
agreeing that Seitzer does not address the field of active head restraint
designs). Dr. Kent also testifies that Seitzer is directed to the use of rotating
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
43
cams to control motion within the context of packaging, assembly, and
production machines. Ex. 2012, 198:12–14, 200:17–21, 204:15–24.
NHK counters by first characterizing the “problem” to which the
’949 patent is directed as being supporting the head of an occupant “in a
reliable, accurate, and quick manner.” Reply 24 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:13–15).
Our review of the cited portion of the ’949 patent reveals that it does not
support NHK’s characterization of the “problem.” The cited portion wholly
fails to mention reliability, accuracy, or speed of supporting the occupant’s
head as being among the problems facing the inventor of the subject matter
of the ’949 patent. Ex. 1001, 1:13–15. Nevertheless, NHK contends that
because Seitzer describes using “mechanical cams” as the “best option” for
applications that demand “accuracy, durability and speed,” a skilled artisan
would consult Seitzer when determining how to move Wiklund’s headrest.
Reply 24. At best, NHK’s cited evidence supports the uncontroversial
finding that cams are known devices for controlling mechanical movement
generally. NHK fails to persuade us, however, that a skilled artisan
concerned with designing an active head restraint system would look to
Seitzer for information about controlling movement of a headrest.
Accordingly, NHK fails to persuade us that Seitzer is analogous art that is
properly considered in a determination of whether claims 2 and 25 are
directed to obvious subject matter.
c) Claims 2 and 25: Whether a Skilled Artisan Would Be
Motivated by Wiklund and Seitzer to Add the Claimed
Bushing and Cam to Wiklund
Even if we were to consider Seitzer to be analogous to the art
addressed by the ’949 patent, Lear persuades us that Seitzer fails to describe
the guide member and follower of claims 2 and 25. Lear persuasively
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
44
argues that Wiklund and Seitzer would not motivate a skilled artisan to
incorporate a “bushing having a cam profile” into Wiklund’s support 24 (the
alleged guideway) because Seitzer describes only rotating cams used in
reciprocating machinery, not the claimed version of the guide member, a
bushing having a cam configuration. Id. at 54–56. Drs. Viano and Kent
agree that Seitzer describes rotating cams, Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 212–15; Ex. 2012,
198:12–14, 200:17–21. Both experts also agree that Seitzer does not
describe the types of non-rotating cams to which the ’949 patent refers.
Ex. 2010 ¶ 214; Ex. 2012, 205:3–5. We determine that a preponderance of
the evidence establishes that Seitzer fails to describe the types of non-
rotating cam configurations discussed in the ’949 patent. Accordingly, we
conclude that the combination of Wiklund and Seitzer does not render the
guide member and follower of claims 2 and 25 obvious. Resp. 52–56.
4. Conclusion
For the reasons expressed above, we conclude that NHK fails to
persuade us by a preponderance of evidence that the combination of
Wiklund and Seitzer renders claims 2 and 25 unpatentable as obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
IV. LEAR’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
We have reviewed Lear’s Motion to Exclude, NHK’s Opposition to
the Motion, and Lear’s Reply in support of the Motion. Based on our
review, we deny the Motion in all respects for one or both of the following
reasons: (1) the Motion is moot because it seeks to exclude evidence not
considered or relied upon in rendering this Decision or (2) the Motion
addresses issues more appropriate to determining the weight ascribed to the
evidence rather than the admissibility of evidence. In rendering this
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
45
Decision, we determine and ascribe the appropriate weight to all proffered
evidence and, when appropriate, comment upon the weight ascribed.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons expressed above, we determine that NHK has shown
by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(1) Nakano anticipates claims 1–3, 6–9, 20, and 21 of the ’949 patent;
(2) Kage anticipates claims 1, 3, and 6–9 of the ’949 patent; and
(3) Wiklund anticipates claims 1, 3, 6–9, 12–16, 20, and 21 of the
’949 patent.
We also determine that NHK has failed to establish by a preponderance of
evidence that claims 4, 10, 11, and 17 are unpatentable as anticipated and
that claims 2 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious.
VI. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is:
ORDERED that claims 1, 3, 6–9, 12–16, 20, and 21 of the ’949 patent
are held unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that claims 2, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 25 of the
’949 patent are held not unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that Lear’s Motion to Exclude is denied; 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.
IPR2014-01079
Patent 6,631,949 B2
46
PETITIONER:
William H. Mandir
John F. Rabena
SUGHRUE MION PLLC
wmandir@sughrue.com
jrabena@sughrue.com
PATENT OWNER:
John M. Halan
Frank A. Angileri
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
jhalan@brookskushman.com
fangileri@brookskushman.com